Alpha-Bits

My wife tried to eat a little generic lightly sweetened cereal with marshmallow bits, and didn't like them. The marshmallow bits were too sweet for her, and the cereal not quite sweet enough. She asked "Where are the Alpha-Bits?" I started looking online to find out if I could find some place that sold it regularly. Well, apparently, Kraft Foods pulled them, after trying a no-sugar variety.

I know there are others out there who can't believe that Alpha-Bits Cereal, by Post, now owned by Kraft Foods, but being sold shortly, are no longer regularly available at any grocery store. Apparently, they will still do occassional "special editions" - We found them at a Super Wal-Mart a few weeks ago), but 1) you never know how long they will remain "on the shelves", and 2) you never know how FAST they will leave the shelves!

I know that one of the reasons many mention is the reason they are no longer available has to do with the fact that American kids are becoming obese. HOWEVER, how can they use this excuse to get rid of whole-grain Alpha-Bits (not the crappy NO SUGAR variety, either - That didn't work at all), but NOT get rid of "Golden Crisp", formerly known as Super Sugar Crisp, whose commercials starred Sugar Bear; Cocoa and Fruity Pebbles, which SURELY has more sugar in them than Alpha-Bits, and that melt into a gooey mass the second you pour milk on them; Honey Comb, a "poor-man's" Alpha-Bits, that has the same problem with melting, albeit slower, as Pebbles, and tastes like a light, air-filled Alpha-Bits; Frosted Shredded Wheat, which OBVIOUSLY has more sugar ON it than regular Alpha-Bits (but probably not Frosted Alpha-Bits)?

Kids are becoming obese because of video-games, television, working parents who buy fast-food and pizza all the time for lunch and supper, lack of "playing outside" (usually for safety concerns), being driven EVERYWHERE (even down the block), etc. Not because they had a bowl of sweetened cereal in the morning!

While Post may be number three in the cereal battle, and apparently stagnent in sales, it seems to me that they could raise some of their bottom line by putting cereals that everyone knows and loves (Alpha-Bits for sure) back on the shelves. I would also venture to say that they could sell quite well in larger batches, online, etc. Well, if and when the RalCorp sale goes through, hopefully it will make them enough money to bring Alpha-Bits back as a regular. (And no screwing around with the recipe, coating, whatever. You can try out different versions after you get the real stuff going! ;-) )

And, while I know the slower-selling products get removed from grocery shelves, it would seem that, say, an online grocery or specialty shop could sell them, still relatively inexpensively, and still make a profit.

Anyway, that's my take on the Alpha-Bit thing. (My wife and I love those things for snacks - with and without milk!)

Virginia Tech Shootings & Campus Security

Soon after I heard about the shootings at Virginia Tech, April 16, 2007, I switched to FoxNews. I watched and listened as each person talked to speculated on what happened. I watched as some they talked to professed righteous indignation at the "lack of security" at the college campus, and demanding to know why they didn't lock the whole campus down immediately following the first of today's incident, especially since they (VT) had a shooting incident at the beginning of the semester, and why it took them two hours to report it to the students. You ever notice how indignant many of the named individual show anchors get when they think they know it all? (And, remember... They DON'T... at least as the news is happening.)

Well, let's think about this. The first shooting occurred in a dormitory/residence hall, and apparently, a man and woman were arguing. An assistant at the hall began to intervene, and the man shot the woman and the RA, dead. He then, left the building, maybe (at least one report said) shooting his way out and wounding a number of other students in the process. While this was going on, 911 was called, the police showed up, shut down the hall, and began assessing the situation. I've heard reports that the dorm was closed, students ordered into their rooms, the injured removed, and the investigation begun, At this point, to me, and to them, it looked like a "domestic incident". (If this had happened in a regular apartment complex, I don't think anything different would have been done.) Logically, this makes sense. They had information it was an escalated argument, the victims were there, reports that the gunman had left the building, etc. The college gathered security forces, including local sheriff and police, and began a sweep of the campus when the second incident was reported.

In the second, an apparent student walked into a classroom and shot the professor dead. All of the students hit the floor. No command was given by the gunman, but they did it, anyway. He then began shooting students. When he left and heard screaming, moaning, and others trying to get 911, he re-entered and shot some more. (This reported by a student wounded in the arm, who apparently "played dead" after being shot.) After killing almost 30 there and wounding a couple of dozen, he killed himself. The shooter had chained the exit doors of the building from the inside, so no one could get in or out easily. Many students, apparently jumped from 1st, 2nd, and 3rd floor windows, some breaking their ankles in landing. (A student they interviewed on the phone reported that they'd rather have their ankle broken than ...) As soon as it was reported, the campus sent out emails to all students, telling them to stay in the dorm rooms, and locked down the whole campus.

HOWEVER, think about THIS: About 9000 students live on campus, with 14000 commuting from OFF campus. These numbers do not include the 10,000 employees of the university, most of whom were "in transit" between the end of the first and second incident. Even in today's day and age, not everyone has cell phones. Not everyone listens to the radio. Even those who do could be taking a shower, listening to CDs with it turned up, etc. They reported that vehicles with loud speakers were driving around campus reporting the campus was closed and to stay in the rooms they were in, and many didn't hear it because of this. HOW are they to let EVERYONE involved know what's going on, stay in their rooms away from windows, and to stay away from campus?

While dorms are locked down to allow only students and employees entrance, one student reported all they had to do when they lost or forgot their key was to wait until someone left, and slip in behind them before the door closed. Besides the dorms, the main buildings cannot be locked down, easily, because there are people (grad students, TAs, maintenance people, etc.) who need full access to them. And even then, the same method could be used to get in and out.
So what are they to do? Almost any security measure can and probably WOULD be considered an invasion of privacy, especially something involving fingerprints and/or corneal scans (the databases could be sold to the government, after all...) It's hard enough to get students to use their student ids for discounts, let alone security. The "slip-in" method has to be addressed. What about older campuses with older buildings? They can't hire armed guards for every room or building. All of this is physical security. Add to that the computers, networks, cell phones, electric and water supplies, etc. You think the cost of secondary education is high now...

HOWEVER, a modicum of security could be handled by the student (and faculty/staff) ID cards. They should contain all the information on a driver's license (except the DL # replaced with an ID number specific to the school), and a unique mag-strip code replaced every time the ID is replaced and/or every year, required for each entry into each building, including parking structures, could be enforceable:

• Security logs any time the student's id is used to enter or leave a building. At class-change, a turnstile or something like it would have to be employed and EVERY student MUST run their card through... Going in AND going out.
• Any student allowing another person to enter a building UNESCORTED (only to the building security desk - They'd take over from there...) without their own access card would be reprimanded the first time, limited to class and their own dorms for a time the second time, and expelled the third time. Satellite security/police offices/kiosks around campus will allow students (after checking to be sure they are who they say they are) to get a temporary ID, used only for that day or a certain number of hours (times can be programmed). These MUST be turned in. This will also be the way for visitors to campus to gain access to certain buildings, especially on Parents' Day or others (temporary/visitor passes).
• All doors are locked unless the card is used, then only unlocked for a short time or until it closes again. No building doors or unsecured first-floor windows are to be left open under ANY circumstances.
• Security cameras should dot the campus (not pointed at ANY dorm windows - if anyone uses them for that, they should be fired and prosecuted).
• Each building should have a flashing light/loud-speaker system installed (think high-school). Each student should have a campus email account (if they don't already). They should have quick access to a page on the campus website that tells them 1) the weather, 2) Amber Alerts, 3) Campus Security Notifications (most of the page), and maybe a few other police, security and "comfort" bits of information. Some of them (except the security notifications) would/should be links. The alarm/loudspeaker should be triggered by campus security (a building, region of, or full campus alert at a time), with a message telling the students a summary of the security problem, and telling them to access the security page. (The flashing lights allow deaf students to see there's a problem, and a klaxon and the announcement allows the blind to hear.)
• Each student's cell phone/PDA # MUST be registered on campus, and be allowed to receive free text-messages from campus security. I'm sure the cell phone providers could be worked with for users' protection. (Especially after VT.) If not, this could be REQUIRED BY LAW.
• The local Emergency Management System could be employed on campus and the surrounding area. Many cable companies employ them, and, I'm sure, many campuses use their own cable system. This could break into radio/TV programming to inform anyone watching/listening of security situations on campus or the local area. (Cable companies need to be sure to sync analog and digital for this to work properly.)
• Maybe signs like they put along the highways now - the ones that flash Amber Alerts and warn of closures? - at each entrance to campus, used in much the same way, but also flashing security situations.
• All security alert systems should be checked at least once-a-month. (Heck... The tornado alarms in our town are tested once-a-week at a specific time.)
• Guess we can't forget about events on-campus for the public... Temp passes would work, but access to other areas of the campus would need to be restricted.

And, I'm sure there are other security measures that can be taken. Some are already in effect on many campuses, but maybe this can give them some ideas. Remember, though... Each and every idea costs money, which the college/university will pass on to students.

Did Virginia Tech make a mistake by not emailing the general campus population about the first incident - that there had been a shooting in a dorm - and the gunman was "on the loose"? Probably, but again, how would they let EVERYONE know? Even with all of the above suggestions, there will still be those who don't get the information until it's too late. And, what happens when it's a student (or two or...) with access to all buildings?

There's no way to make campuses as secure as many parents would like without virtually keeping all students sequestered on-campus and in their dorms throughout a complete semester... Think they'd allow the same type of frat or sorority parties in a prison like this? (Is that a BAD thing?)

Do you have any more security ideas or comments on the above?

Bill Sanders

Imus, Words and Questions

Don Imus has been fired by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Are Sharpton and Jackson happy? I doubt it. Jackson has said, "Imus is on 1,040 hours a [year] and yet they have virtually no black show hosts. That is true for other networks as well, We must raise the ethical standard for all of them." (Hosts or networks, Jesse?)

Because of two words, neither of which is the "N-BOMB", and words that are used in black artists' songs (rap and otherwise), Imus has been labeled as racist and sexist. He's 67, so he may be ready to retire, but I have questions (and my, admittedly, PERCEIVED answers to some, to the public AND to the networks involved.)

Question: Does this mean that the majority of rap music out there is sexist and racist? Oh, HELL NO! See, because they are of the race being insulted, "it's ok". Why isn't there such a storm over every one of those songs that use the terms? Instead, they fly to #1 on the charts. Why is it that races and nationalities can call others in their own race/nationality by words and "insulting terms", but if a white man or other race does, it's bad? Doesn't the use of the terms just mean that people are trying to be current? ... Hip? ... That the race/nationality and their music/movies/tv shows are making "inroads" in the public's consciousness? (I'm not the only one to think this way... See http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/04/12/don-imus-fired-now-lets-go-after-the-black-rappers/)

Question: Don Imus said a couple of other things that weren't "right", but the controversy was sparked over two words, one of which was initially said by the show's executive producer, Bernard McGuirk. And even more insults were heaped on the Rutgers team by former Imus sports announcer Sid Rosenberg, filling in for [regular] sportscaster Chris Carlin. Why weren't THEY fired?

(If you want to read a transcript of what was said, that section of the show can be found at http://mediamatters.org/items/200704040011. Find "Imus".)

Question: Why is it that other celebs who've said "bad things" (and a lot stronger and harsher than Imus' two words), are allowed to go to "rehab", then "all is forgiven"?

Question: With the proliferation of rap music, and the HUGE use of at least one of the terms Imus uttered in it, is it any wonder that people don't know what they CAN and CAN'T say without fearing the Sharptons, the Jacksons and many other publicity hounds of the world won't jump down their throats? (Why aren't they all over the news denouncing rap music for its racist, sexist and violent lyrics? Why don't they protest all the violence in music and video games? Why can Snoop Dogg say these things without backlash, but when ANY white guy does, there're demands of termination?)

Please don't misunderstand. I don't like the words, myself. I can't see ANY case where I, personally, would use the words. These terms and the promotion of violence are the main reasons I don't like a lot of rap music. (OK... Add to that the incescent BOOM BOOM BOOMs from many cars, driven by all races.) And rap-writers: Don't tell me that that's what you grew up with... That type of rap ain't THAT old!

Does anyone remember George Carlin's "Seven Words You Can't Say On Television"? Last time I saw him do it, the list had grown to about an 11-foot scroll. Guess if he hasn't, already, he's got to add a BUNCH of other terms, huh? Then again, if he says them, even reading from the list of words you can't say, he'll probably be attacked as racist, sexist, etc.

Should Imus have been fired? I don't know. (I never listened to him, so have no clue if Jackson's claim of "a pattern" is correct.) Should he have been punished? I'd say, "yes". Originally, he was to be suspended. (Was that with or without pay?) That would have been time he could have gone to rehab with Jesse. Instead, Sharpton and Jackson saw "a pattern" (in Imus, or America?), and demanded termination; Sponsors threatened to or did pull their support; And Imus was canned. Over two words used in numerous #1 songs.

If certain words aren't allowed to be used by mainstream America, why are they allowed by anyone, anywhere?

Bill Sanders

Political Ads and Criminals Among Us

Political Ads

Have you noticed? It seems like the vast majority of the negative political ads are by the parties' national commitees. Sure, there are local ads where the opposing individuals approve the slamming commercials. (Heck... Indianapolis' prosecutor race is at least 90% negative.) And some of the things said...

People wonder where our kids are getting this type of attitude? Yes, the scoudrels on the TV shows we all watch can be "nasty", but we can always point out to our kids that they are not real people. But the nastiness in those pervasive political ads, which gets even worse around election day, has to take SOME of the blame. These are REAL people saying these things about each other. GEEZE!

One of our news channels also interviewed a few kids about them. They were asked what they wanted to be when they grew up. A few said they'd thought about being a Mayor, Governor, etc., but they didn't think they'd ever want to run, because of the negative ads.

And the ads are one thing, but if the press should EVER find out about ANYTHING that person did when they were growing up... WATCH OUT!

Criminals Among Us

In Indiana, this week, a 16-year-old waitress was killed by a co-worker, who'd recently been let out of a Kansas prison for killing a 5-year-old, after spending 20+ years as a model prisoner. He had family in Indiana, and the paperwork was OK'd allowing him to move in with them, transferring his parole from Kansas to Indiana.

The story is that his truck broke down, she stopped to help, he "got a feeling", and strangled her to death, then stabbed her with a hunting knife to "make sure she was dead". He left her body in a field. An amber alert was issued the next morning, and the search was on. After a day or so, the police arrested him, apparently after he confessed and led them to the body. Of course, everyone is asking how this could happen? How could a child-killer (he also stabbed the child's mother, but she lived) be released from a Kansas prison, move to Indiana without the police knowing, live in a neighborhood where no one knew, and be free enough to kill again.

Well, my understanding is that when someone serves the minimum time for their crime (notice that most sentences are "10-25 years"? "25-life"? etc.?), they are eligible for parole. They go before a parole board to plead their case for release. Victims families are allowed to speak and/or send letters to the board, pleading against release. The parole board decides, based on testimony and their actions as a prisoner, and maybe they are released. (Everyone knows that CHARLES MANSON has been before the parole board a number of times, right? If you don't know who he is, search for his name.) From my understanding, normally release on parole is contingent on probation, where if they are caught doing anything against the law (I assume something like speeding is ok).

It's been very recently that those convicted of sex-crimes had to report to a registry, which everyone can view online, and see where they are living. If you don't notice, apparently, there's a time-period for their reporting. In other words, it appears that after they have reported for a length of time, and stayed out of trouble, they don't have to report any more.

Now, they are saying that the same type of registry should be created (why not the same one, so it's easier?) for "child killers". (I'm sure this will be expanded to include other violent crimes.)
Personally, I'd like to know. I know that I wouldn't do anything to them but watch them like a hawk. (Same with the sex-crime people.)

But what of those who have served their time, served their probation and are now actually "rehabilitated". I've seen cases where the criminal becomes an advocate. (Anyone else watch "It Takes a Thief" show on Discovery?) And there are many more former criminals (some sexual, some violent) who have turned around and become advocates. Of course, I'm not dumb enough to suggest that ANYONE but the ex-con themselves would KNOW that they are rehabilitated. And, I'm sure that Discovery and Allstate (who now sponser ITAT) realize that they are taking a chance. However, I'm also sure that the guys on the show also know that this is one of the very few chances they have to "ply their wares" and get away with it, by helping homeowners with their security.

What about all those former drug addicts? We glorify the stars who have "cleaned up their acts", even when they have relapses. Do we track them forever, too? How 'bout all those former hookers? Do we keep track of them, too? How 'bout the kids who commit crimes as kids, then have their files sealed when they reach a certain age? Should ALL of them have their files sealed? Should they be monitered? Who will pay for the manpower to do this? We are having problems keeping up with all of those who are arrested and NEED to be put in prison. (That's where the "early release" and/or "minimum sentencing" came from.)

Truth is, we never know most of our neighbors well enough to know whether they've ever been in prison for anything. (In this case, "jail" and "prison" are the same.)

Remember when we, as kids, had the "run of the neighborhood"? Neighbors actually WATCHED OUT for everyone's kid. Hillary's right about her quote of the African proverb, "It takes a village to raise a child." Now-days, it's "It takes a neighborhood", "town", "city", etc. And it seems it's NEVER anyone's fault but the parents.

Hell, I rode a bike or WALKED a mile to school each day, from second grade through 10th, when I got a car. Oh, and home for lunch and back to school, 2nd-6th). We played outside all over the neighborhood. Mom just yelled out the door for us when it was time to come in. There was no (or very little) worry about child molestors, no worry about kidnappers, killers, drug dealers, gangs, etc. in our neighborhood. I don't remember ANY stories (and I read the paper) of kids being killed or abused (and we were SPANKED when we were bad). I'm sure it happened, but not in our town.

Our generation was probably the last who will see that freedom as kids.

Ok... I rambled off the subject for a second... How did it happen? He did everything he was supposed to do to get out before he died. (I know that the parents of the kid he killed years ago, and the parents of the kid killed recently will object.) He went through all the legalities and was allowed to move to Indiana. The cops say they didn't know he was in the area. And what would they have done differently if they did? There are too few cops to handle the traffic, special events, patrolling, etc. AND to watch every ex-con who moves to town. The one thing it's unsure of is if anything was done about psychiatric treatment that was recommended.

What would I do if it was my kid? I'd want to kill the bastard. Thank God it wasn't. And I'm praying for the victims and the families (both the victims' and the killer's) involved.

Something has happened to our society to produce these criminals. Part has to do with the fact that very few families can live on one salary, so both parents have to work. Part has to do with not being allowed to punish our kids physically (well short of abuse) without the fear of being arrested. (Remember the wooden spoon? the yard stick? the brush? Hell, I even got whacked in Jr High by the vice-principle. I had the fear of God in me that my parents would find out. Too busy, too permissive, too... Is TV to blame? Personally, I don't think so, but the shows the parents watch WITH the kids, without explaining about "special effects" is may be... How 'bout the video games getting more and more violent? Yes, I'm sure that doesn't help. Personally, we played the more "lame" games, and the kids killed MONSTERS, not other people, at least until they were 16 or more, and KNEW it was a game... Is it the fact we don't go to church near as much? That could be, too.

So anyone have a solution short of putting them all to death? (DNA has proved that some of those convicted of crimes weren't involved, even years later.) Are we getting ready for an "Escape from New York" scenario, where we wall off complete cities, and send all the criminals there? What happens when THAT fills up?

I have no clue how to end this... I just needed to ramble... about dumb questions, about how we are no longer as safe (read free) as we used to be... about other observations.

So, that's it, for now.

DAMN CREDIT CARDS and Their Finance Charges

Isn't it amazing that Credit Card companies are complaining that more and more people are filing bankruptcies, yet they continue to use loan-shark interest if you are late on ONE FREAKING PAYMENT by ONE DAY? No. Not me, but I know people.

When interest rates were low a number of years ago, the "penalty rates", etc., were only a few points higher. When interest rates went to 18 percent, penatly rates went to 21 or 22%. NOW, interest rates are almost as low (if not as low) as they were before, but the penalty interest rates are 27-33%! WHAT THEY HELL IS GOING ON?

They will also raise your rates if you've been late on ANY (recent) payment that appears on your credit report. WHY? If you're not late making payments to THEM, why should they care if you were late to another to MAKE their payment?

It's absolutely ridiculous that your interest can jump from under 9% to 30% in ONE PAYMENT. It's also unfair that the finance charges you can incur equal or exceed your payments. There should be a limit (apparently it's over 30%!).

I've also known people who have actually filed bankruptcy. Sometimes they're told not to make any more payments (good for your credit score... of course, if you're doing so to file bankruptcy...) Others had to manage to save $700 (maybe by not makeing more payments...) or so to pay a lawyer for help in filing. Now, if you can save $700, why file bankruptcy?

The government regulates "price gouging" on various things. Why not credit cards? Limit the "penalty interest" to a ONE TIME RAISE of 5 points above what it was when you were late. If you continue to have problems, then they call (and not the nasty "collection agency" calls, but someone within their company who can ACTUALLY help you).

Credit Counselors may need to be regulated, too. I understand some will get your money, and there's no PROOF that they made the payments to the companies as they promised they would. If they will take your case, and deal with the credit card companies, THEY should get the calls, and be penalized, NOT YOU. (Many Credit Couseling Companies are PAID by the credit card companies to make collections... THIS IS NOT RIGHT.)

At least one site I saw recommends that to deal with the situation, you simply stop making the payments to the company, instead putting that money in a savings account. Let them call you a certain number of times, then ask if they'd take the money in your savings account to eliminate everything you owe them, and, according to the site, the majority of the time they will, basically "eating" 50% or more of the debt, just to get the lump-sum of the rest of it. (Of course, you need to make sure to get proof they've actually eliminated the debt, and that they've notified the reporting agencies that you no longer owe the debt, so can no long be late. AND, of course, he offers to help you through the process...) I don't know that 1) this is ethical; 2) not dangerous. The claim is that your credit score will "take a minor hit" during the process, but once the charge is gone, your score will start raising, again.

It seems there's no legal or ethical way to "get out from under" consumer debt. Unless you can fully pay them off, it seems like a mathematical equation approaching zero (1/n+1 where n starts at 1 and grows... You will NEVER hit zero, even when n is infinitely large... It's ALWAYS just out of reach.)

Just like gas prices, when the companies find out what the market will tolerate, you can never expect those prices to go back down to levels EVERYONE can live with. Well, when interest rates were 18%, the credit card companies found that the market would tolerate 21%+ penalty interest. When the rates went down, they DID NOT lower the penalty rates.

It seems that if the credit card companies will negotiate a payment of 50%+ LUMP SUM to eliminate the debt owed them, they should also be willing to forgive part of the debt on the card, without the debtor resorting to non-payment or threat of bankruptcy. (Suggestion, simply drop ALL of the accrued finance charges and start them over - ONE TIME OFFER!) AND, if a person has made payments regularly and on time, if they're late once-a-year (AND only for that company's payments!), it should be forgiven.

(Oh... And at least one of the people I know in these "straits" CONTINUE to receive credit card offers - some with low interest rates, some with high - even from the SAME company!)

It seems to me that if credit card (and other loan) companies don't want to play fair with the public, it's time for the government to step in and and MAKE them, and SOON!