Frugal Living: 24 new messages in 11 topics

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What happened to surface mail shipping overseas?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e3751aa3d845f2e1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 7:18 am
From: "OhioGuy"

Were they really subsidized? After all, shipping on a boat SHOULD be a
lot cheaper. The boat is shipping hundreds of times more volume per amount
of fuel spent. Yes, it is slow, but is also much more efficient. If it
isn't more costly to fly, then why don't all of those cheap Chinese imports
get flown over here? They come by boat, because it is much cheaper.

I'm thinking that the U.S. postal service didn't get rid of those sea
routes because they were losing money, or because they were subsidized. I
believe they got rid of the inexpensive route as a way to force people to
use their more expensive and profitable routes. After all, if it's the only
option offered, then they make a whole lot of money - environment be damned,
evidently.

Makes it impossible for people like me to use the more environmentally
friendly, inexpensive method. We may have free trade agreements, but now
they are more for the huge corporations, and not for the common man.

> Those heavily subsidized / money losing methods of mailing were eliminated
> at the last postage increase

A couple of years ago, I shipped a batch of comics out using surface mail
to Australia. Today I was considering the possibility of selling the batch
of comics I get each month (24) to someone in Europe. I decided that before
seriously going after the idea, I should look up how much shipping would
cost. I figured that I would be able to find some sort of surface mail
route that would be about half the airmail cost, as I had in the past. I
was wrong.

What I found was a choice between paying $29.60 for "first class
international" (no specified delivery time, and no tracking) and $30.40 for
"Priority Mail International", which has a 6 to 10 day delivery time, and
had tracking. This is for a 4 pound package of 24 comic books. That means
that shipping from here to England - 3,923 miles - would be $1.25 per comic.

To put this in perspective, I could mail the same box using Media Mail
from Miami, Florida to Anchorage, Alaska for only 3 dollars and 35 cents.
That includes delivery confirmation. And yes, that route takes them 3,981
miles total, and either through 2 countries, or else in a ship across the
ocean. So the distances are almost exactly the same.

Now I realize that shipping to Alaska is subsidized. It is part of our
empire, of course, and the government wants to facilitate communication and
exchange of goods between the various states. I expected oceangoing mail to
a foreign country to cost on the order of 4 or 5 times as much - about $15.

What I can't believe is that it is instead a 10X order of magnitude. Ten
times as much to mail it the same distance! All because I guess now we are
forced to use airmail, whether we want to or not?

I do not support airmail. Sure, it is fast, but it is also a very
polluting and inefficient way to get things from place to place. You have
to expend fuel negating the force of gravity the whole way. A ship
overcomes gravity naturally, just because it weighs less than the water it
displaces. Ships also use Diesel fuel, which has 40% more energy per
gallon, and thereby pollutes less per mile travelled. Of course, the
environmental impact is only the lesser part of my frustration.

The biggest part is that I can't imagine finding anyone willing to pay the
roughly $1.25 per comic for shipping. Shipping within the U.S. is only 13c
each. Limiting me to airmail effectively forces me to pass along this much,
much higher cost of shipping to any potential international buyer. I
usually get about 75c to a dollar each for my used comics. Adding shipping
in the U.S. costs a buyer another 13% or so. Adding shipping
internationally now costs a buyer an extra 125%! In practice, I think it
means that nobody internationally is going to spend even a second
considering buying my monthly batch of comics. It really stinks, because it
limits my resale market.

Are there no longer any options to use an actual ship for shipping these
days?

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 8:37 am
From: Brian Elfert

"OhioGuy" <none@none.net> writes:

> I do not support airmail. Sure, it is fast, but it is also a very
>polluting and inefficient way to get things from place to place. You have
>to expend fuel negating the force of gravity the whole way. A ship
>overcomes gravity naturally, just because it weighs less than the water it
>displaces. Ships also use Diesel fuel, which has 40% more energy per
>gallon, and thereby pollutes less per mile travelled. Of course, the
>environmental impact is only the lesser part of my frustration.

Any plane delivering mail would have jet engines. Jet fuel is a less
refined version of diesel. Jet fuel can be used in most diesel engines.

A ship is certainly more efficient than a plane, but not simply because
they use diesel fuel. A lot of ships actually use fuel oil and a fairly
thick fuel oil at that.

This is kinda like when I asked UPS about ground shipping to Hawaii and
they basically laughed at me. I assumed they could use a ship to do
ground shipments, but no, they only offer air shipping to Hawaii.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 9:11 am
From: "bungalow_steve@yahoo.com"

On Oct 10, 10:18 am, "OhioGuy" <n...@none.net> wrote:
> Were they really subsidized? After all, shipping on a boat SHOULD be a
> lot cheaper. The boat is shipping hundreds of times more volume per amount
> of fuel spent. Yes, it is slow, but is also much more efficient. If it
> isn't more costly to fly, then why don't all of those cheap Chinese imports
> get flown over here? They come by boat, because it is much cheaper.
>
> I'm thinking that the U.S. postal service didn't get rid of those sea
> routes because they were losing money, or because they were subsidized. I
> believe they got rid of the inexpensive route as a way to force people to
> use their more expensive and profitable routes. After all, if it's the only
> option offered, then they make a whole lot of money - environment be damned,
> evidently.
>
> Makes it impossible for people like me to use the more environmentally
> friendly, inexpensive method. We may have free trade agreements, but now
> they are more for the huge corporations, and not for the common man.
>
> > Those heavily subsidized / money losing methods of mailing were eliminated
> > at the last postage increase
>
> A couple of years ago, I shipped a batch of comics out using surface mail
> to Australia. Today I was considering the possibility of selling the batch
> of comics I get each month (24) to someone in Europe. I decided that before
> seriously going after the idea, I should look up how much shipping would
> cost. I figured that I would be able to find some sort of surface mail
> route that would be about half the airmail cost, as I had in the past. I
> was wrong.
>
> What I found was a choice between paying $29.60 for "first class
> international" (no specified delivery time, and no tracking) and $30.40 for
> "Priority Mail International", which has a 6 to 10 day delivery time, and
> had tracking. This is for a 4 pound package of 24 comic books. That means
> that shipping from here to England - 3,923 miles - would be $1.25 per comic.
>
> To put this in perspective, I could mail the same box using Media Mail
> from Miami, Florida to Anchorage, Alaska for only 3 dollars and 35 cents.
> That includes delivery confirmation. And yes, that route takes them 3,981
> miles total, and either through 2 countries, or else in a ship across the
> ocean. So the distances are almost exactly the same.
>
> Now I realize that shipping to Alaska is subsidized. It is part of our
> empire, of course, and the government wants to facilitate communication and
> exchange of goods between the various states. I expected oceangoing mail to
> a foreign country to cost on the order of 4 or 5 times as much - about $15.

It does, your illegally uses media mail to ship comics, that why there
is such a large discrepancy between the two numbers, compare priority
mail with international priority mail.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 9:33 am
From: George

OhioGuy wrote:
> Were they really subsidized? After all, shipping on a boat SHOULD be a
> lot cheaper. The boat is shipping hundreds of times more volume per amount
> of fuel spent. Yes, it is slow, but is also much more efficient. If it
> isn't more costly to fly, then why don't all of those cheap Chinese imports
> get flown over here? They come by boat, because it is much cheaper.

Sure, but it is a well orchestrated process with frequent use. I would
bet that the amount of mail traveling by boat is almost nil so there is
no economy of scale.

>
> I'm thinking that the U.S. postal service didn't get rid of those sea
> routes because they were losing money, or because they were subsidized. I
> believe they got rid of the inexpensive route as a way to force people to
> use their more expensive and profitable routes. After all, if it's the only
> option offered, then they make a whole lot of money - environment be damned,
> evidently.
>
> Makes it impossible for people like me to use the more environmentally
> friendly, inexpensive method. We may have free trade agreements, but now
> they are more for the huge corporations, and not for the common man.

Ever buy at Walmart? If you do you gave the signal that megacorps are
good and you like it that way.

>
>
>> Those heavily subsidized / money losing methods of mailing were eliminated
>> at the last postage increase
>
>
> A couple of years ago, I shipped a batch of comics out using surface mail
> to Australia. Today I was considering the possibility of selling the batch
> of comics I get each month (24) to someone in Europe. I decided that before
> seriously going after the idea, I should look up how much shipping would
> cost. I figured that I would be able to find some sort of surface mail
> route that would be about half the airmail cost, as I had in the past. I
> was wrong.
>
> What I found was a choice between paying $29.60 for "first class
> international" (no specified delivery time, and no tracking) and $30.40 for
> "Priority Mail International", which has a 6 to 10 day delivery time, and
> had tracking. This is for a 4 pound package of 24 comic books. That means
> that shipping from here to England - 3,923 miles - would be $1.25 per comic.
>
> To put this in perspective, I could mail the same box using Media Mail
> from Miami, Florida to Anchorage, Alaska for only 3 dollars and 35 cents.
> That includes delivery confirmation. And yes, that route takes them 3,981
> miles total, and either through 2 countries, or else in a ship across the
> ocean. So the distances are almost exactly the same.
>
> Now I realize that shipping to Alaska is subsidized. It is part of our
> empire, of course, and the government wants to facilitate communication and
> exchange of goods between the various states. I expected oceangoing mail to
> a foreign country to cost on the order of 4 or 5 times as much - about $15.
>
> What I can't believe is that it is instead a 10X order of magnitude. Ten
> times as much to mail it the same distance! All because I guess now we are
> forced to use airmail, whether we want to or not?
>
> I do not support airmail. Sure, it is fast, but it is also a very
> polluting and inefficient way to get things from place to place. You have
> to expend fuel negating the force of gravity the whole way. A ship
> overcomes gravity naturally, just because it weighs less than the water it
> displaces. Ships also use Diesel fuel, which has 40% more energy per
> gallon, and thereby pollutes less per mile travelled. Of course, the
> environmental impact is only the lesser part of my frustration.
>
> The biggest part is that I can't imagine finding anyone willing to pay the
> roughly $1.25 per comic for shipping. Shipping within the U.S. is only 13c
> each. Limiting me to airmail effectively forces me to pass along this much,
> much higher cost of shipping to any potential international buyer. I
> usually get about 75c to a dollar each for my used comics. Adding shipping
> in the U.S. costs a buyer another 13% or so. Adding shipping
> internationally now costs a buyer an extra 125%! In practice, I think it
> means that nobody internationally is going to spend even a second
> considering buying my monthly batch of comics. It really stinks, because it
> limits my resale market.
>
> Are there no longer any options to use an actual ship for shipping these
> days?
>
>

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 10:42 am
From: "OhioGuy"

>It does, your illegally uses media mail to ship comics, >that why there is
>such a large discrepancy between the >two numbers, compare priority mail
>with international >priority mail.

Media mail is perfectly legal for comics. I don't know why some people
think it isn't. Note that the restriction "can not contain advertising"
means that it can not be items with the exclusive intention to be used as
advertising, such as fliers, etc. This does NOT mean you can't ship a book
with an ad in it, or a magazine with one of those fall-out renewal notices.

From the USPS website:

Media Mail
Formerly (and colloquially, still) known as "Book Rate", Media Mail is used
to send books, printed materials, sound recordings, videotapes, CD-ROMs,
diskettes, and similar, but cannot contain advertising. Maximum weight is 70
pounds (31.75 kg).

a.. Delivery standards are 5-9 business days
b.. Rates based on weight
c.. Much cheaper than Parcel Post, and roughly the same transit time from
point "A" to point "B"
d.. Postage can be paid using any method except precanceled stamps

Bound Printed Matter
Same as Media Mail but it is used to mail permanently-bound sheets of
advertising, promotional, directory or editorial material such as catalogs
and phonebooks. It may be slightly cheaper than Media Mail rates.
Observations:

a.. Package can weigh up to 15 lb.
b.. Sheets must be permanently-bound by secure fastenings such as staples,
spiral binding, glue or stitching.
c.. At least 90% of the sheets must be imprinted by any process other than
handwriting or typewriting.
d.. Mail must be marked "return service requested" to receive
undeliverable back. Mail without this marking will be disposed of.
e.. Postage may be applied by PC postage, permit imprint, or stamps, but
cannot be bought at a retail counter, effective May 14, 2007.

I would prefer to use Bound Printed Matter rate instead of Media Mail,
since it is more specific to what I am sending. However, Paypal's online
shipping service does not offer it as an option. As such, I and the
thousands of others who ship magazines, books, comics, etc. online using
Paypal's free online postage shipping must choose Media Mail as an
all-in-one choice for written or recorded media of any kind.

Realize, however, that just because there is one item that could be
construed as advertising inside an item does not mean the same as saying you
are shipping advertising related materials. This distinction merely ensures
that Media Mail is not being used to subsidize the shipping of advertising
materials such as signs and posters by large companies.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 10:47 am
From: Cindy Hamilton

The Chinese manufacturers don't ship each toy individually. I'm sure
if
you could fill up a cargo container with comics, you could find some
way
to ship them to Europe on a real boat.

> I'm thinking that the U.S. postal service didn't get rid of those sea
> routes because they were losing money, or because they were subsidized. I
> believe they got rid of the inexpensive route as a way to force people to
> use their more expensive and profitable routes. After all, if it's the only
> option offered, then they make a whole lot of money - environment be damned,
> evidently.

I imagine they got rid of them because hardly anybody ships that way
anymore.
I'd never use U.S. mail for anything I really cared about. If FedEx
were allowed
to handle first class mail, I'd probably use them even if it cost
more.

> Makes it impossible for people like me to use the more environmentally
> friendly, inexpensive method. We may have free trade agreements, but now
> they are more for the huge corporations, and not for the common man.

Everything is for huge corporations. When you hire a bunch of
lobbyists
to persuade the government to do stuff, you'll get things done your
way.

> > Those heavily subsidized / money losing methods of mailing were eliminated
> > at the last postage increase
>
> A couple of years ago, I shipped a batch of comics out using surface mail
> to Australia. Today I was considering the possibility of selling the batch
> of comics I get each month (24) to someone in Europe. I decided that before
> seriously going after the idea, I should look up how much shipping would
> cost. I figured that I would be able to find some sort of surface mail
> route that would be about half the airmail cost, as I had in the past. I
> was wrong.
>
> What I found was a choice between paying $29.60 for "first class
> international" (no specified delivery time, and no tracking) and $30.40 for
> "Priority Mail International", which has a 6 to 10 day delivery time, and
> had tracking. This is for a 4 pound package of 24 comic books. That means
> that shipping from here to England - 3,923 miles - would be $1.25 per comic.
>
> To put this in perspective, I could mail the same box using Media Mail
> from Miami, Florida to Anchorage, Alaska for only 3 dollars and 35 cents.
> That includes delivery confirmation. And yes, that route takes them 3,981
> miles total, and either through 2 countries, or else in a ship across the
> ocean. So the distances are almost exactly the same.
>
> Now I realize that shipping to Alaska is subsidized. It is part of our
> empire, of course, and the government wants to facilitate communication and
> exchange of goods between the various states. I expected oceangoing mail to
> a foreign country to cost on the order of 4 or 5 times as much - about $15.
>
> What I can't believe is that it is instead a 10X order of magnitude. Ten
> times as much to mail it the same distance! All because I guess now we are
> forced to use airmail, whether we want to or not?
>
> I do not support airmail. Sure, it is fast, but it is also a very
> polluting and inefficient way to get things from place to place. You have
> to expend fuel negating the force of gravity the whole way. A ship
> overcomes gravity naturally, just because it weighs less than the water it
> displaces. Ships also use Diesel fuel, which has 40% more energy per
> gallon, and thereby pollutes less per mile travelled. Of course, the
> environmental impact is only the lesser part of my frustration.
>
> The biggest part is that I can't imagine finding anyone willing to pay the
> roughly $1.25 per comic for shipping. Shipping within the U.S. is only 13c
> each. Limiting me to airmail effectively forces me to pass along this much,
> much higher cost of shipping to any potential international buyer. I
> usually get about 75c to a dollar each for my used comics. Adding shipping
> in the U.S. costs a buyer another 13% or so. Adding shipping
> internationally now costs a buyer an extra 125%! In practice, I think it
> means that nobody internationally is going to spend even a second
> considering buying my monthly batch of comics. It really stinks, because it
> limits my resale market.
>
> Are there no longer any options to use an actual ship for shipping these
> days?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dollars Stores and Liquid Soap
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/f0bed274e0c47e99?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 7:51 am
From: "Evelyn C. Leeper"

Just another note on liquid soaps in dollar stores: Not only is it
cheaper than at the grocery (even if you are buying large refill
containers), but you can get "ordinary" soap (i.e., not anti-bacterial).
For people who think that using anti-bacterial soap all the time is a
bad time, this is useful to know.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper
He who knows only his own side of the case
knows little of that. -John Stuart Mill

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 9:16 am
From: larry

Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
> Just another note on liquid soaps in dollar stores: Not only is it
> cheaper than at the grocery (even if you are buying large refill
> containers), but you can get "ordinary" soap (i.e., not anti-bacterial).
> For people who think that using anti-bacterial soap all the time is a
> bad time, this is useful to know.
>

Watch prices carefully at Dollar General. After their
buyout, nothing but another cashcow raid by KKR, they
changed a lot of suppliers and jacked up prices by about
30%!!!

Our local Krogers now beats DG prices by about 12%, and the
quality is better.

-- larry / dallas

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ron Paul...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/eb674cb08f954f60?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 8:03 am
From: gfretwell@aol.com

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:54:12 -0700, George Grapman
<sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:

> Actually I remember it very well. Like the Voting Rights Act it
>simply implemented the 14th Amendment.

Unfortunately the feds use "the 14th amendment" to justify most of
their mandates, like the "right" to be arrested for medical marijauna
even when the state says it is legal.
They would use the same logic to enforce any other unfunded or
underfunded mandate, even if the starte did refuse federal funding.
The fact still remains that there is really no such thing as federal
funding. It is OUR money. This is particularly true in the case of
gasoline taxes

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 8:35 am
From: Kurt Ullman

In article <avppg3peqh8gd8uibovtnjkcahtr637p6n@4ax.com>,
gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:54:12 -0700, George Grapman
> <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Actually I remember it very well. Like the Voting Rights Act it
> >simply implemented the 14th Amendment.
>
>
> Unfortunately the feds use "the 14th amendment" to justify most of
> their mandates, like the "right" to be arrested for medical marijauna
> even when the state says it is legal.
Actually that is much better through the Interstate Commerce clause.
It has always been well settled that medication decisions rest with the
FDA and the federal government. Especially since the current state of
the literature in medical marijuana makes the research behind Vioxx,
etc., look pristine in comparison.
Most of the people in favor of medical mj would be howling at the
moon if Big Pharm tried to push through a "regular medication" with such
iffy backing.

> They would use the same logic to enforce any other unfunded or
> underfunded mandate, even if the starte did refuse federal funding.
> The fact still remains that there is really no such thing as federal
> funding. It is OUR money. This is particularly true in the case of
> gasoline taxes

Especially since that brings out transportation bills that are ALWAYS
pork laden. I have been saying since the end of the original interstates
in the early 80s, that the Fed gas taxes should be rolled back to enough
to fund safety and materials research. Let the states, if they decide
they want, increase their own taxes and decide where THEY want to spend
the money.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 9:01 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

>> Actually I remember it very well. Like the Voting Rights Act
> it simply implemented the 14th Amendment.
>
> Unfortunately the feds use "the 14th amendment" to justify
> most of their mandates, like the "right" to be arrested for
> medical marijauna even when the state says it is legal.
> They would use the same logic to enforce any other unfunded or
> underfunded mandate, even if the starte did refuse federal
> funding. The fact still remains that there is really no such
> thing as federal funding. It is OUR money. This is
> particularly true in the case of gasoline taxes
>
I need to be wary of feeding OT threads here, but you are
basically correct. The 14th is primarily concerned with rights
afforded to ex-slaves extended to all citizens. A so-called "due
process" clause got slipped in somehow either to bolster the
original purpose or perhaps to avoid the need for a separate
amendment.

Unfortunately, what is supposed to be a PROTECTION is turning out
these days to be more of a TAKEAWAY of our freedoms and rights.
Let's keep the Rebublican vs. Democrat debate clear of this, but
what you're really referring to seems to be known as "activist
judges legislating from the bench". It has been going on for
decades but has decidely accelerated during the current
Administration. Since you mention a medicine issue, I'll give a
scary way the 14th is being used: more and more hospitals are
using it as a way to FORCE their patients to accept ANY and ALL
treatment no matter what they patient wishes. No, I'm not talking
about patients with Alzheimer's, I'm talking about fully
competent patients. The 14th is being used to suggest that
refusing medical treatment constitutes defacto proof that the
patient is trying to commit medical suicide, which is a crime.

As to budgets, you are spot-on, as the Brits say! ALL
governmental levels from towns/cities to counties to states to
the Federal government have zero.zero dollars except that which
is willingly given to them by their citizens or extorted somehow.
Worse, since ANY budget, whether it be you and your wife, a
business, or any level of government, is by definition what I
call a "zero sum game". Meaning that at any given time, there is
only so much money available, no matter how it got there. So,
absent an increase of revenue from either growing the economy or
increasing taxes, the BEST that can be hoped for is to cut
spending in one area in order to increase it in another and/or
increase the deficit by putting the burden on our children and
grandchildren.

Perhaps the most powerful amendment, even more than the 1st, 4th,
or 5th, is the 10th, which essentially says that ANY power not
speecifically granted to the Federal government is reserved to
the states or the people. Seems simple enought to understand,
right? And, while thinking people can easily comprehend that the
REAL intent of the ENTIRE Constitution is really to LIMIT the
power of the Federal government while PROTECTING the freedoms and
rights of the people, it has sadly turned into shysters - most
lawmakers are attorneys - and judges into looking for loopholes
that allow them to alter something as simple as medicinal use of
a joint. If the 10th really applied, Roe v Wade would not be an
issue nor would medical joints.

Lastly, yes, unfunded mandates are exeedingly dangerous, but what
is FAR worse is off-budget items and what are commonly called
"entitlements", such as Social Security and Medicare. If one
examines the Federal budget in summary fashion, a positively
frightenly large perentage are entitlements, which by their very
definition are sacrosinct and not open to discussion. No matter
how you may feel about the war in Iraq, the ENTIRE military
budget for this country is only about 4% of the discretionary
spending, actually a reasonable number. Military spending is also
at relatively low levels even compared to Viet Nam and certainly
lower than at the height of the Cold War. Problem is, though,
that the size of the discretionary spending part of the budget is
so small that 4% of it actually looms as an alarmingly HUGE
number, and the root cause of a trillion dollars of spending, all
financed by borrowing. As bad as borrowing money is concerned,
another truly frightening factoid is that we're getting it from
what is almost certain to become our enemy quite soon - China.

All of that said, I don't want to engage in anything at all to do
with Ron Paul. I will say only this: the Democrats have/had
Dennis Kuchinich as their nutbag, Paul is the Republican nutbag.
It isn't that being a strict constructionist is so wrong, I
actually like the idea, but Ron Paul comes across as a crazy man
when he advocates such absurd notions as abolishing the entire
IRS without any compensating revenue source and abolishing the
FBI, to name just a few. Fix them, yes, get rid of them in the
first 100 days of your administration is so wildly foolhardy that
nobody can possibly take him seriously.

But, to get an feeling for why he has out-raised campaign funds
in the entire race, rent the old Richard Pryor movie "Brewster's
Millions" where he needs to spend $1,000,000.00 in 30 days and
decides to mount a political campaign he dubbed "vote for none of
the above" to simply waste some of the million. So, by
analogy/metaphor, people contributing to Ron Paul don't really
believe he can win, they want to send a message to ALL the
Republicans that "business as usual" in WashLincoln DC isn't
nearly good enough. This "message" also extends to the Democrats.
Gross disatisfaction with Congress fulfilling its role to
initiate and approve appropriations in the House and exercise
separation of power responsibilities through Congressional
oversight is working no better since the Democrats regained a
majority in both houses than prior to 2006 mid-terms. So, while
President Bush is actually enjoying a bump in his rather dismal
approval ratings as the surge appears to be succeeding at least a
little, Congress as a whole - both parties - are at the historic
LOW of only 11%. Can you believe it? Only 11% of voters think
they are doing a good job

And that, sir or madame, is all I have to say about "vote for
none of the above". I have stayed clear of this thread because I
don't want to encourage this NG becoming bogged down in political
infighting, but your comments resonated with some strong feelings
I have in general. So, let me apologize for breaking my own rule,
but perhaps it would be wise for us to let this thread die and
try to stick to the burning issues of the day in digital
photography, and there are plenty of them.

Good luck in what you think you need to do in Decision 2008 and
try to have a good week!

--
HP, aka Jerry

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 9:09 am
From: Bert Hyman

kurtullman@yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman) wrote in
news:kurtullman-67365D.11350110102007@032-478-847.area7.spcsdns.net:

> It has always been well settled that medication decisions rest with
> the FDA and the federal government. Especially since the current
> state of the literature in medical marijuana makes the research
> behind Vioxx, etc., look pristine in comparison.

Which of course explains why the sale of thoroughly bogus
"homeopathic medicines" is legal in the US.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Apples
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/408e635a462df7fd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 8:09 am
From: PaPaPeng

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:05:26 -0000, "charleymccormick@gmail.com"
<charleymccormick@gmail.com> wrote:

>China is known for it's abusive use of
>pesticides; that there are millions of farmers growing apples and no
>way to monitor their pesticide use; that farmers are afraid of buying
>"fake" pesticide and often use too much in order to compensate.

Since the natives (aka mainland Chinese) are the biggest consumers of
locally grown fruits should we expect a big spike in cancer and other
pesticide related illnesses? Since 40 percent of the apple juice
consumed in the US is imported from China should all babies and
children stop drinking applejuice. The US applejuice marketeers do
not identify the origin of their products. Since you don;t import
applejuice to dump it presumably there will be a lot of US people who
will be poisoned by pesticides, ergo a spike that should show up
somewhere soon.

I didn't make up the story about prewrapping the apple buds to mature
the apples in. I was as astonished as anyone when I saw that TV
report. But read the story below.

Note: The cost of pesticides will be way to expensive to make apple
growing uneconomical. In view of the report that apples are so
plentiful and the price so low that apples are left to rot on the
ground we can assume that the hand pollination and paper bag technique
won't be used. But I have seen China origin apples in paper wrapper
bags that could not have possibly been wrapped after harvesting. I
don't eat apples. For some reason it induces a thick lump of phlegm
in my throat and even a mild gagging reflex.
============================

Export Apple of China's Eye Is, er, Apples
DAVID BARBOZA / NY Times 4apr03
http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/2003/China-Export-Apple4apr03.htm

XIAN, China -- This is where much of America's apple juice now comes
from -- the outskirts of historic Xian, where the orchards stretch for
miles and miles. Apples are so plentiful here that they are often left
to rot in the fields. They are scattered on the ground in old farming
villages and pitched against walls by playful little boys like red and
gold baseballs.

There are so many apples in China -- which over the last two decades
turned itself into the world's biggest apple grower -- that the world
price for apple juice concentrate has been depressed for nearly five
years. Apple juice makers in the United States purchase more of
China's cheap concentrate every year -- though they do not like to talk
about it -- and every year American apple growers complain of
devastating losses.

But do not expect growers in Xian, or any other part of China, to
abandon their apple orchards.

"Yeah, prices are low, but I'm sticking with my apples," says Wang
Aimin, a 40-year-old grower in Lining, a village about 40 miles
northwest of Xian. "Life is better now. I used to grow corn and wheat,
but you couldn't live on that."

These are the economics of modern agriculture in China -- and the
market psychology of the modern Chinese farmer. Even a deeply
depressed market is preferable to what farmers suffered through for
decades, when they could not expect to make even $1 a day selling
crops to local markets.

After China opened its agriculture to the broader export market in the
1980's, farmers here started growing apples, backed by government
largess. These days, China produces 1.5 billion bushels of apples a
year -- about half the world's supply, and nearly seven times the
American production of about 215 million bushels a year.

And China is working to improve the productivity of its relatively
low-yielding orchards. Apples are one of 11 commodities that the
government recently said would get aggressive development over the
next five years.

"There's a potential in the future that they're going to have even
more apples," said John Skorburg, a senior economist at the American
Farm Bureau Federation. "And it's going to put even more pressure on
the apple industry."

For years, American apple growers have complained that China has
dumped apple juice concentrate into the American market at prices
below the cost of production, and the Chinese for years have denied
the charges.

Three years ago, the Department of Commerce and the International
Trade Commission, a United States government agency, ruled in favor of
American apple growers, and Washington imposed duties of up to 52
percent on most apple juice imports from China.

A decision is expected soon on China's appeal of the rulings. In the
meantime, the Chinese share of the American apple juice concentrate
market has jumped from about 1 percent in 1994 to about 16 percent in
2001, while American growers' share has been tumbling.

Nearly all the concentrate pressed at the Tongda Liquan Fruit Juice
and Beverage Company processing plant near Xian is shipped abroad in
giant bacteria-free drums. The concentrate ends up in the United
States, Russia, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Australia and
elsewhere.

"We're selling all this to the export market," said Yang Bingfeng, 40,
the assistant manager, as he passed through a yard of drums ready to
be shipped. "But we think the domestic market has a great potential to
grow."

In January, Congress stepped in to help American growers with $94
million in compensation for losses suffered in 2000, partly because of
rising sales of Chinese apple juice concentrate.

Officials in China, which joined the World Trade Organization in late
2001, say that the American charges smack of trade warfare.

"Since China joined the W.T.O., China will follow all W.T.O.
principles and other relevant trade agreements," the Ministry of
Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation said in a statement issued in
response to questions about the apple dispute. "But China is also
opposed to trade protectionism under the name of antidumping."

It was the Beijing government that fueled the beginnings of China's
apple boom in the late 1980's.

At the time, Chinese apples, small and tasteless, were largely shunned
on the world market. But then China, newly export-minded, began
importing Red and Yellow Delicious apple seedlings, and new techniques
were employed to improve the quality of local varieties like the
Guoguan and the Jinguan.

Soon, farmers started planting huge apple orchards in the central and
northeastern parts of the country, particularly in Shaanxi and
Shandong Provinces, where the yellow soil is rich and deep and the
amount of daylight is optimum for apple growing, according to industry
experts.

By 1997, China had seven million acres under cultivation, and Chinese
apples were being exported to Russia and the Netherlands. Farmers in
the Xian region rejoiced. "We've had some very good years," said Lei
Zhilin, 48, an apple grower in Liquan, a town just north of Xian.

Apple prices, however, have been tumbling in recent years because of
oversupply. Some growers in China have pared back apple acreage to
plant other fruits and vegetables. Yet with improving yields, apple
production has continued to soar, reaching 21 million metric tons in
2002.

Most of that production is for domestic consumption, of both fresh
apples and apple juice; as China grows more affluent, it is becoming
more health conscious.

Still, with yields rising and apple consumption in China relatively
flat, some industry experts say China has begun to throw some of its
big surpluses of fresh fruit onto the world market, as it has with
juice concentrate.

"We already see apples going into Vancouver, and that is close to
home," said Nancy Foster, president of the U.S. Apple Association, a
trade group. "We're concerned about dumping apples as a possibility."

There are certainly more than enough apples in China.

In Lining village, apples are stocked in caves, cellars and long
tunnels ventilated by huge, chimneylike structures that rise high
above the orchards. And the abundance delights the apple growers.

"I made 400 yuan when I planted corn and wheat," Mr. Wang said,
recalling the time in the 1980's before he transformed his one-acre
field into an apple orchard. "Now, I make 5,000 yuan. And in some
years 10,000." (One yuan is worth about 12 cents.) In the best of
times, some apple growers in Lining said they made 50,000 yuan.

Over the last decade, the apple growers have slowly begun to transform
their tiny village of mud houses by building brick homes -- people here
call them palaces -- with electricity, televisions and three or four
sparsely decorated but well-constructed rooms.

"Look over there," Mr. Wang said, pointing and laughing as he and five
other apple growers pruned trees one recent afternoon. "You see those
houses -- those mud houses? That's where we used to live. Look at those
places. Now, look next door. That's the new place."

Wang Shengli, a tall, quiet 42-year-old apple grower who is not
related to Wang Aimin, offered a tour of his home -- seven spacious
rooms for him, his wife and four young children. The house cost
200,000 yuan, he said, or about $24,000, noting that the home was
bought during boom times.

Apple growers here expect those times to return. Apple prices will
rise again, they say. And even if they do not, today's depressed apple
market -- with its bruised and abandoned apples splattered on the
village grounds -- looks quite glorious, compared with what people here
knew before.

"We'll be planting more apples, because there's no other choice," Wang
Shengli said. "We're not going to go back to planting wheat; that's
yesterday's crop."

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 8:32 am
From: PaPaPeng

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:09:50 GMT, PaPaPeng <PaPaPeng@yahoo.com> wrote:

>ides will be way to expensive to make apple
>growing uneconomical. In view of the report that apples are so
>plentiful and the price so low that apples are left to rot on the
>ground we can assume that the hand pollination and paper bag technique
>won't be used. But I have seen China origin apples in paper wrapper
>bags that could not have possibly been wrapped after harvesting.

Spoke too soon. Read a few stories further into a google search.

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/newsrel/2003/nov03/nov0309.html
Excerpt: Inside a Shaanxi orchard, the contrasts with U.S orchards are
striking. Chinese farmers usually grow additional crops, such as chili
peppers or edible soybeans, between the tree rows in young orchards.
The rows of trees are spaced so tightly that machinery can't drive
between them, so pesticide sprayers are pulled through the orchard by
hand. Shaanxi orchards are devoted to a single apple variety, Fuji.
With its sweet taste and crisp texture, it is preferred by Asian
consumers.

Fruit bagging is even more eye-catching. When it's no bigger than a
blueberry, each apple is enclosed in a two-layer plastic bag. The
opaque outer bag comes off a few weeks before harvest, allowing the
apple peel to darken to its proper color. The inner bag is discarded
at harvest.

The beauty of the bags is in what they keep out - insects and
diseases, resulting in picture-perfect apples.

You won't see plastic bags on apples in American orchards. The reason
is that our labor costs are astronomical compared to China's.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why is it the finest hotel in the world
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/da3c33089d27a883?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 8:52 am
From: Stella

Why is it the finest hotel in the world
http://hotel-burj-al-arab.blogspot.com/2006/12/best-hotel-in-world.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: best price on 2 GB SD card?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3e1069e27c061244?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 9:00 am
From: Dennis

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:59:19 -0400, "Evelyn C. Leeper"
<eleeper@optonline.net> wrote:

>You might try asking in your local Freecycle group--people may have them
>lying around because they don't use anything that small anymore.

Wow, I've been reading movie reviews by the Leepers for over 20 years.
I didn't know you hung out in mcf-l.

Dennis (evil)
--
I'm a hands-on, footloose, knee-jerk head case. -George Carlin

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 12:08 pm
From: turtlelover

Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
> turtlelover wrote:
>
>> Dennis wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:10:43 -0700, James <jlinn@idirect.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 8, 8:42 pm, "OhioGuy" <n...@none.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anybody know of a great deal on SD cards? I need at least 2 of
>>>>> the 2GB variety to use in a couple of card readers I have laying
>>>>> around.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another frugal hint - make sure your device can read 2GB SD cards.
>>>> Many older card readers, digital cameras and PDAs can only read up to
>>>> 1GB cards. I didn't know this until I read a sign at a local
>>>> retailler. I then went to check my Palm Tungsten T3, and it will only
>>>> take up to 1 GB.
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, depending on what you want to use it for, pay attention to the
>>> read/write speeds. Many of the cheap SD cards are pretty slow.
>>
>>
>> I know what you mean about the older cameras. I have an Olympus 2020z
>> that uses a _maximum_ 64MB card. The cards are nowhere to be found
>> ... for a reasonable price, anyway. I wouldn't expect retail
>> locations to use valuable shelf space for "obsolete" (in their eyes)
>> media; however, I would also hope that someone who has one for sale
>> wouldn't expect big bucks for them.
>
>
> You might try asking in your local Freecycle group--people may have them
> lying around because they don't use anything that small anymore.
>

Thanks for the suggestion, but I've already tried Freecycle. I guess it wouldn't hurt to try again!

Cheers,
T

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Free Home Depot $25.00 Coupon
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/dfa57811d5cb17ab?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 9:04 am
From: "TheBestFreebies.com"

Free $25.00 off coupon from The Home Depot when you sign up
to attend the Free Girls' Night In, Do-It-Herself Workshop.

--
The Best Freebies

All free products are available at http://TheBestFreebies.com/ and
are intended for families, businesses, and individuals residing in
the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 5 Myths About Sick Old Europe
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ef3efcef81294249?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 9:08 am
From: Mike

Blash wrote:
> in article feb1vf$hr7$1@news04.infoave.net, Mike at prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com
> wrote on 10/7/07 12:37 PM:
>
>> Blash wrote:
>>> Joe wrote on 10/7/07 5:26 AM:
>>>
>>>> They're better than the USA ... at least for anyone who's not filthy
>>>> rich.
>>> AHA!!! That explains why nobody is trying to get in the U.S.
>>> The border patrol is to stop people from leaving.......
>> The border patrol is keeping EUROPEANS out???
>
> Read it again S L O W L Y ! ! !

You, apparently, need to "[r]ead it again S L O W L Y ! ! !" The
original post was about Europeans and how they actually are better off
than Americans. YOU then started talking about the border patrol (who
basically cover the border between us and Mexico/Canada.) There IS no
"border" between us and Europe and thus the border patrol doesn't stop
THEM from entering and your "AHA!!! That explains why nobody is trying
to get in the U.S." made no sense as a response to the "[Europeans are]
better than the USA ... at least for anyone who's not filthy rich."

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 9:22 am
From: Lawyerkill

On Oct 10, 12:08?pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
> Blash wrote:
> > in article feb1vf$hr...@news04.infoave.net, Mike at prabb...@shamrocksgf.com
> > wrote on 10/7/07 12:37 PM:
>
> >> Blash wrote:
> >>> Joe wrote on 10/7/07 5:26 AM:
>
> >>>> They're better than the USA ... at least for anyone who's not filthy
> >>>> rich.
> >>> AHA!!! That explains why nobody is trying to get in the U.S.
> >>> The border patrol is to stop people from leaving.......
> >> The border patrol is keeping EUROPEANS out???
>
> > Read it again S L O W L Y ! ! !
>
> You, apparently, need to "[r]ead it again S L O W L Y ! ! !" The
> original post was about Europeans and how they actually are better off
> than Americans. YOU then started talking about the border patrol (who
> basically cover the border between us and Mexico/Canada.) There IS no
> "border" between us and Europe and thus the border patrol doesn't stop
> THEM from entering and your "AHA!!! That explains why nobody is trying
> to get in the U.S." made no sense as a response to the "[Europeans are]
> better than the USA ... at least for anyone who's not filthy rich."

<--Shaking head

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 10:12 am
From: Blash

in article feitdk$l00$1@news04.infoave.net, Mike at prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com
wrote on 10/10/07 12:08 PM:

> Blash wrote:
>> in article feb1vf$hr7$1@news04.infoave.net, Mike at prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com
>> wrote on 10/7/07 12:37 PM:
>>
>>> Blash wrote:
>>>> Joe wrote on 10/7/07 5:26 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> They're better than the USA ... at least for anyone who's not filthy
>>>>> rich.
>>>> AHA!!! That explains why nobody is trying to get in the U.S.
>>>> The border patrol is to stop people from leaving.......
>>> The border patrol is keeping EUROPEANS out???
>>
>> Read it again S L O W L Y ! ! !
>
> You, apparently, need to "[r]ead it again S L O W L Y ! ! !" The
> original post was about Europeans and how they actually are better off
> than Americans. YOU then started talking about the border patrol (who
> basically cover the border between us and Mexico/Canada.) There IS no
> "border" between us and Europe and thus the border patrol doesn't stop
> THEM from entering and your "AHA!!! That explains why nobody is trying
> to get in the U.S." made no sense as a response to the "[Europeans are]
> better than the USA ... at least for anyone who's not filthy rich."
>
>

Are all those who feel the overwhelming need to cross-post mentally
challenged???

==============================================================================
TOPIC: They turned my electricity off! Geez . . .
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c205655129881297?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 10:44 am
From: Abe

>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Tockk wrote:
>
>> I went home tonight, and lo and behold, the power is off to my humble
>> domicile. The adjacent apartments have power, so something's up.
>
>Did you check the fuse box?
>
>My water company is quick to start threatening even if I am a day
>or two late on the bill. But they always leave notices.
>
>If they cut you off without notice that could be a problem for them.
>Especially with all of those cases of t-bone steaks in your
>freezer. About $1,000 worth I'd say. Ruined by their negligence.
>Tsk, tsk.
Yeah, but do you have valid receipts for the steaks. If not, tsk on
you.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bush To Let Illegal Aliens Get $40 Digital TV Coupons
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/f941e4a655a77d3f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 10:57 am
From: "Jerry Okamura"

"Thanatos" <atropos@mac.com> wrote in message
news:atropos-F75617.00090210102007@news.giganews.com...
> In article <470c2a86$0$7506$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> I asked for what someone would suggest we do about the problem.
>> Do you have a workable plan?
>
> Not the point. You're bascially saying, "Yeah, there's a problem but
> until someone tells me how it can be solved (at which point I will do my
> damndest to torpedo whatever they come up with), nothing should be done
> at all."

I had a boss who told me once, you know every Tom, Dick and Harry can tell
me about what they see as a problem. It does very little good to hear about
a problem if they do not have a solution to the perceived problem. If you
believe that something is a problem and you have no solution to solving the
problem, then the problem will never go away....because SOMEONE has to come
up with a solution.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Play online Casino,Poker,Bingo with no Deposit required
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e72c24f2bc19cdc3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 11:03 am
From: goocrawler

Play Casino,Poker,Bingo with no Deposit required
Welcome for community frends/partners
hi everybody-apologies for the delay in my posting.
Free Money No Deposit Required Casino ,Bingo and Poker Room Boonuses
and Comps
No Deposit Poker and No Deposit Casinos Latest Promotions
If there is one thing that Poker Players can't enough of Its Free
Money.
On this blog page there are deals listed that will give you free real
money to your pocket,
No strings attached No Deposit required,nothing NADA without further
ado,here is your free
Money/chips ,over $600 free cash listed on this blog page alon !!
come to visit this web address
Affilite marketing representative :
http://casino-casi.blogspot.com/

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

24 new messages in 11 topics - digest

No comments: