Spitting in the Wind?

Is It Just Me, or are all the government financial bailouts akin to spitting in the wind?

Billions of taxpayer dollars are being directed toward financial institutions and car manufacturers -- and mind you, while I'm not in favor of government handouts to companies that are in deep doo-doo mostly because of their own actions (or inactions), I'm convinced that the consequences of not loaning this money at this point would be dire indeed. That said, I also believe that it's much like using a sprinkling can to put out a forest fire. Perhaps it will help a bit, but only for the short term. Worse, though, is that it will take years for the positive effects -- if indeed there are any -- to trickle down to the consumer level.

And therein, I believe, lies the real problem. It won't matter much if the Big 3 get their financial houses in order if consumers don't buy their products. Even if financial institutions finally decide to open their newly fat purses and make money available to consumers (instead of using their windfalls to snap up other financial institutions), it won't matter if consumers don't apply for loans to start and grow businesses or buy that new house or car.

At the consumer level, several factors come into play. We all know that the foreclosure rate on mortgage loans is escalating, and if 60 Minutes is to be believed, we're in for a new, and possibly more extensive, round after the first of tye year. Yes, many of these loans never should have been made in the first place; but chastizing the financial institutions for making them and the borrowers for not understanding that their payments could double a few years down the road accomplishes nothing. Instead of taking homes away from their owners, it seems to me a better solution to rewrite the mortgage contract so that monthly increases, if any, are minimal.

Right about the same time, I noticed another trend: people who, by my standards, are quite well off -- and wouldn't otherwise be caught dead in a Wal-Mart -- were starting to not only become bargain hunters, but were taking obvious pride in doing so. It almost seemed that suddenly these folks learned what the rest of us had known for years; it's dumb to pay higher prices for the same items just so you can bring them home in a bag from Bloomingdale's (fill in your upscale store of choice here). Toilet paper? Dollar General. Dockers? Kohl's. The Thanksgiving turkey? a Super Wal-Mart or Kmart or Aldi.

Credit debt is another troublesome area, and the mess didn't start yesterday. A couple of years ago, lender restrictions were changed to allow card issuers to increase the percentage to be paid on monthly balances -- effectively raising monthly payments as much as twice what they used to be (yes, it happened to us). Given that the average household has at least two credit cards, families were forced to deal with an unexpected money crunch long before the mortgage crisis hit. About the same time, energy costs began to skyrocket, once again as much as doubling the monthly costs for home heating and operating the family vehicle(s). It was back then that discretionary income was decimated for many; so why would it come as a surprise that there's nothing left to handle a ballooning mortgage payment?

Now, we hear that new laws have been passed to put the brakes on some of the questionable practices of credit card issuers. To be sure, that's good news for consumers, but here, too, it's too little, too late. I'm quite sure that the laws, which won't go into effect till January 2010 anyway, won't be retroactive. So those who fell victim to the practices that now are illegal won't be helped a bit.
At the very least, why not return the income tax deduction for credit card interest that was instituted during the last recession (and phased out several years later)? That's not a cure-all by any stretch of the imagination, but it certainly would offer some measure of relief for debt-ridden consumers.

Automakers, I believe, have a harder road ahead -- and it won't ease up just by figuring out a way to cut costs. They also must deal with consumers reluctant to buy vehicles from companies whose futures are uncertain. Just today, a report from J.D.Power & Associates determined that unless a stimulus is provided to kick-start consumer buying, carmakers troubles will be far from over. December forecasts show seasonally adjusted sales of 9.8 million vehicles, but Power analyst Jesse Toprak points out that "no automaker can survive as a viable business in the United States if fewer than 11 million vehicles are sold industrywide."

Worse, according to the Big 3's own declarations, more fuel-efficient vehicles are on the way -- but not for at least a couple more model years, and so far not at prices the average consumer will be able to afford (certainly not if the mortgage and credit crisis doesn't let up). In the meantime, why would anyone, even someone who has the money or can get the credit, buy one of the gas-guzzling vehicles now on the lots or that are churned out between now and the time the more cost-effective cars go on the market? Certainly not my family; we'll make do with the car we have (which, although it's a 2004 model, gets more than 30 miles to the gallon) as long as we possibly can.

The same is true for retailers; unless you're 16 years old and a twig, when was the last time you found clothing that would cover the parts you need covered in a department or specialty store? Even if we wanted to part with our money for something we want but don't really need, there's virtually nothing of interest to spend it on. On top of that, the high cost of travel is keeping most consumers close to home. And as long as we're forced to be there, we might as well do our eating and drinking there, too, thus saving the cost of eating out -- another plus.

The underlying problem, though, is that it's hard to lock the barn door after the horse is out. Many consumers now have felt the fear of losing what they have -- whether real or just a possibility. Both they and more affluent consumers now take pride in finding bargains (for years, I've refused to look at any discretionary item unless it's at least 50% off). I've yet to see a shred of evidence to suggest these folks will be willing to reopen their wallets even if there's money inside.

Do I have a magic solution? No way. But I remain certain that unless and until real economic relief reaches you and me, the future isn't very bright.

Or Is It Just Me?

Customers Lose as Eateries 'Downsize'

Is It Just Me, or are consumers getting hosed once again as the over-supply of restaurants scurry to fill up the seats and stay in business?

A day or so ago, for instance, I read that McDonald's is introducing a new sandwich called the "McDouble." Reportedly, it will replace the popular double cheeseburger; the only difference, it seems, is that the new version will have one slice of cheese instead of two. Actually, there are two differences -- one of them of concern to me: The new one is expected to sell for about $1.19, while the old one remains on the "Dollar Menu" at most locations (also reportedly, it's being pulled from that menu in some places so they can hike the price up over a buck).

The new version, in fact, supposedly will cost McDonald's 6 cents less to make than the existing double cheeseburger. Why, then, will it be sold for more than the one that had two slices of cheese? Hmmm; your guess is as good as mine.

And my guess is it's part of a growing trend among restaurants toward cutting down on portion size while keeping prices right where they used to be. Over the past several months, my husband and I have been shocked to see how small some of the things we enjoy have become. At one restaurant, the basket of onion rings that was guaranteed to provide us with leftovers in the past now is barely sufficient to satisfy a single diner. At another, the pasta bowls have been downsized, most likely in the hope that customers won't notice that the pasta in it has been downsized as well.

Now don't get me wrong: I'm all for making portions of reasonable size, meaning enough for a meal but not so much that customers either make huge pigs of themselves trying to finish (a very unhealthy custom, to be sure) or even to provide enough for a second meal back at home. And, I know that now isn't a great time to increase prices, and restaurants surely are feeling the pinch as their own costs escalate out of sight.

But that doesn't mean I'll continue to pay $12 for an entree that's half the size it once was. If you charge me that much, by golly, there'd better be plenty to fill the "people" bags.

Some restaurants are trying an end run; they've introduced smaller-portion "value" meals that are priced low enough that customers who are struggling to make ends meet still can [hopefully] afford to eat out once in a while. It's still a sleight-of-hand maneuver, though; the meals cost more than the same amount would have cost a year ago, but because the overall price sounds reasonable (say $5.99 for a bowl of soup and a sandwich), consumers may think they're getting a good deal.

In my opinion, there's nothing good about it (except perhaps that eating out will remain affordable for more people in the short term). But if the economy does start picking up again, I'll bet my first-born son that there won't be a rush toward giant-sized meals again -- or for that matter, to changing prices to reflect the economic upswing. It's just another type of bait-and-switch, with unsuspecting customers paying the real price.

Or Is It Just Me?

Wanted: Good Places to 'Park'

Is It Just Me, or are parks and nature preserves among the best things that ever happened to this country?

My real interest in these public properties came rather late in life -- in fact, shortly after I officially retired from my newspaper editor's job. It was right about then that my husband, Jack, started getting serious about photography, and in particular, taking pictures of lighthouses. But what about me? I thought. Of course, I could (and would) take lighthouse photos myself on our travels, but then we'd end up with dozens of photos of the same subjects. And what's the point to that?

Right about then, I happened to pick up a brochure describing the wonders of Ohio's state parks -- and inspiration hit. My goal, I told Jack, was to get photographs in all of them.

In all honesty, it isn't likely to happen ever, for two important reasons: First, I added Ohio's wonderful state nature preserves to the list, more than doubling the number of places to see. Second, the bulk of our travels take us outside the Buckeye State, so now we make it a practice to visit as many state and national parks as we can no matter where we are. As I write this, in fact, it's the eve of our four-day trip to West Virginia, where we'll stay at the lodge in Hawk's Nest State Park and branch out to see Babcock State Park and its much-photographed mill.

I'm fortunate in that respect to live where I do; within an hour or so, I can be in one of at least eight state parks and one national park in Ohio and Pennsylvania. And arguably the most impressive park -- Mill Creek Park in Youngstown, Ohio, is almost in our backyard.

For those who don't know, the Mill Creek Metropolitan Park District, with approximately 2,600 acres, 20 miles of drives and 15 miles of hiking trails, is one of the largest municipally owned parks in the country. Established in 1891, the park property is part of four Mahoning County, Ohio, watersheds: Mill Creek, Yellow Creek, Meander, and Yankee Creek. Major attractions include lakes and wetlands, a par-3 championship golf course, many picnic and recreation areas, the historic Lanterman's Mill, the Ford Nature Education Center, Fellows Riverside Gardens and the D.D. and Velma Davis Education & Visitor Center. Nearby MetroParks Farm and Yellow Creek Park offer additional educational opportunities. With so much going on there, it's a rare week that my husband and I don't spend at least a little time there.

Over the last few months, I've been saddened by news that California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger plans to shut down 48 state parks. Closer to home comes news of budget cutbacks in the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Recreation (reportedly, the division's 2008 budget is 48% less than in 2000). Admittedly, it's unlikely that I'll ever get to California, but lots of other people enjoy the parks there; obviously, I'm concerned about Buckeye State parks.

It's always tough to make do on less, but right now seems a particularly bad time to be tightening the pursestrings. As the cost of gasoline skyrockets, it seems logical to me that more people will turn to community, state and national parks closer to their homes for summer outings. That prospect made me happy till I read a newspaper column by a local outdoor writer, who agreed with my belief but pointed out some serious downsides. More people, he wrote, will mean even more wear and tear on our parks -- and little money to keep everything in good working order. It won't take long, he pointed out, before people decide they don't want to stay in a campground that has no overnight security, or where the trash barrels haven't been emptied for weeks on end and the grass is 6 feet high.

He's absolutely right. I'm not sure which is more distressing -- that our parks stand to fall into disrepair or that visitors stop coming -- but I know the outlook isn't good from my vantage point. As I said at the outset, these natural resources are one of the greatest assets our country has. It is absolutely essential that we protect our public lands from ruin so future generations can enjoy them as much as we have.

Or Is It Just Me?

Sleazy Politicians: Give Me a Break

Is It Just Me, or are politicians becoming more sleazy by the day?

Now I grant you I've never been a big fan of poliltics. I look forward to campaign season only because I know I'll have plenty of time to read books since I turn off the TV to avoid their annoying ads. I hate that they're exempt from telemarketing laws and free to bombard me with pre-recorded messages several times a day, most of which do little except bash their competitors (for the record, I firmly believe there should be a law prohibiting all candidates from even mentioning the name of any other political officeholder, or candidate for such an office, during their own campaigns. This would, I believe, force them to talk about what they personally believe and plan to do -- the only things I'm interested in hearing from them anyway).

Perhaps it's because of where I live -- northeastern Ohio -- that I feel the pain so much. Over the past several years, any time my husband and I go on vacation and happen to mention where we're from, it's a sure bet at least one person will look aghast and say, "Isn't that where that U.S. Congressman who got sent to jail is from?"

Just when we thought we might enjoy a summer free of such references, along comes our state attorney general, who hails from our neck of the woods and has, in the relatively short time he's been in office, managed to follow in the footsteps of former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer -- apparently both in temperament and in actions. The only real difference, so far at least, is that "our" AG is stubbornly maintaining he did nothing really wrong, despite mounting evidence of what has been, at the very least, unethical behavior while in office.

No, I'm not talking about his admitted extramarital fling-ding. That, I believe, is a personal matter that has little, if any, impact on how well he can do the job (although it does fly in the face of his campaign theme that was based on returning honor, integrity and honesty to the AG's office). And, the fact that it reportedly involved a subordinate employee -- with all the implications that brings with it -- puts an entirely different spin on

Rather, it's the behavior that's led to the dubious distinction of having the local newspaper apologize for endorsing him prior to the election, saying the editorial board should have known that he was "completely unqualified ...to run such a large and important state office." The board "had an inkling," the editorial said, that all would not be well once he assumed office.

So did I. In part, my opinion was based on being on the receiving end of an e-mail asking for contributions -- a message that was at the very least questionable ethically because it was sent to state employees and also because it arrived totally unsolicited (this from someone who had pledged to crack down on spammers). When I complained, the response was that the errant messages had been sent by a mistake that had since been corrected.

Ah, I thought -- but who approved the sending of those messages to that list of recipients? How did his campaign staff get the list of e-mail addresses in the first place? Perhaps he didn't personally authorize any of this. Call me crazy, but I believe the buck stops at the top. If he doesn't know what his campaign workers are doing -- or knows what they're doing and can't put a stop to it -- why would I think it wouldn't be more of the same once he's in office?

Unfortunately, my suspicion has come to fruition, as hand-picked employee after hand-picked employee has been fired for an assortment of reasons that reportedly range from inaccuracies on a resume to sexual harassment. As I write this, the entire Democratic contingent in Columbus -- including the governor -- has asked for his resignation. His response? So far, in true Spitzer-like fashion, he's insisted that he's staying put.

What will happen next I don't know; what I do know that he's become this year's poster boy for sleazy politicians. By the time you read this, I hope in my heart of hearts that he's had the decency to clean out his desk and get out of Dodge. Too bad the place he'll end up is the same place I'd like to be proud to call home.

Update: On May 14, Ohio's attorney general announced his resignation from the office he held for 17 months.

Or Is It Just Me?

O' Accuracy, Where Art Thou?

Is It Just Me, or are people who should know better becoming totally careless when it comes to writing and speaking?

I'm just finishing up the ninth consecutive novel in which I've found at least one, and in some cases multiple, errors of spelling and grammar. Last week, the professionally printed menus at two restaurants my husband and I visited contained misspelled words. On last night's 6 p.m. news, we grimaced [once again] as an effervescent young weathercaster spoke, repeatedly, of improving "tempachoors."

I admit that since I'm a professional writer and editor and my husband is a former high school English teacher, we're more "tuned in" to these kinds of mistakes. That said, I'm quite sure that in years past, they didn't happen anywhere near as often.

If I recall correctly, I began paying serious attention to this phenomenon a few years back when the then-governor of Ohio launched a campaign to encourage volunteers to help children with reading. The campaign included strategically placed billboards throughout the Buckeye State. The first time I saw one, I nearly drove off the road.

Right up there for everyone to see (which, not insignificantly, included all those children who presumably needed help with reading), was this phrase: "Help a Child, Be a Mentor."

Stop the presses! Did my eyes deceive me? Surely I didn't see a sign promoting literacy that contained a run-on sentence!

Alas, I did. In fairness, I've played in the advertising game, and I'm well aware that it's permissible to take liberties with headlines that anywhere else would be considered inexcusable. But how, I wondered, could anyone possibly explain to a seven-year-old that "incorrect" might be acceptable in this instance, but not when he or she is writing a book report? Kids today have enough trouble learning the right way, for goodness sake -- the least we adults can do is not add to the confusion.

(Just in case anyone is wondering, the phrase would have been correct had they put a semicolon or dash between the words "Child" and "Be" or simply made two sentences, as in "Help a Child. Be a Mentor.")

Unfortunately, what started as a trend seems to have escalated into an epidemic -- and this time, we can't blame it on China or Japan. Just within the past year or so, for instance, I've sent e-mails to no less than four national magazines to inform them of errors in fact and spelling.

The problem is particularly troublesome on local TV news broadcasts. Certainly, I'm willing to blame some of it on the fact that two local stations recently came under ownership by the same company; the resulting staff reductions, merging of back-office operations and increased dependence on lower-paid, freshly minted college grads are virtually guaranteed to create technical glitches, lapses in oversight and outright sabotage. But no matter how hard I try, I simply cannot justify constant misspellings in backdrops and scroll bars and mispronunciation of important (and well known) places and names by news anchors.

More recently, I had the displeasure of editing an "article" for a local business newspaper that was sent by a woman who'd just written a book; she had, or so her bio proclaimed, a master's degree in English. Her topic? Bemoaning the fact that because of text messaging and other abbreviated forms of communication that are so popular these days, young people do not learn to write properly.

Ah, just what the world needs to hear, I said -- but that was before I started to read her article. Many minutes and the start of a headache later, I concluded she had a valid point. But given the astounding number of grammatical errors she made that had to be corrected before I would dare show it to anyone else, much less an entire newspaper audience, it also was clear she was totally unqualified to be making it.

For the record, of those four magazines to which I sent e-mails regarding errors, one sent a confirmation of receipt and two I never heard from. The fourth, though, made me question whether there's any hope for the future at all: In her e-mail reply, the editor informed me that my message pointing out their reporter's mistake had given the entire office a laugh for the day.

Her message, unfortunately, was clear as a bell: So what if it's wrong? Hey, folks, mistakes not only are okay, but funny. If we screw up, so what?

Well, my dear, the last laugh is mine: I no longer subscribe to your magazine. Truth be told, we rarely watch local news shows these days, either. Instead, we turn to national networks like Fox and CNN, where yes, mistakes do happen, but with far less frequency.

I understand, and fully applaud, the fact that we live in an age of instant information where the speedy bird gets the worm. But it doesn't follow, at least in my mind, that accuracy needs to be sacrificed in the process.

Or Is It Just Me?

Customer Service Questions? Customers Have Answers

Is It Just Me, or are the owners of big department stores the only people who don’t understand why shoppers aren’t flocking in the doors these days? Not long ago, I read that Macy’s (in our area, nee Kaufmann’s), is closing "under-performing" stores. I guess that means they added up the cost of renting space and paying employees, and if the annual profit wasn’t sufficient to do that and leave a big chunk of change for the executives and stockholders, that’s all she wrote.

Maybe, just maybe, those owners and executives should take a look at things from the customers’ perspective before they board up the doors. On a recent outting, my husband and I stopped at a local shopping mall – something we used to do with regularity but no longer get much pleasure from. Were we glad to be back? Hardly; our visit only reinforced the reasons we’ve been taking our business elsewhere over the past couple of years.

Somewhere, somebody on high apparently decided it’s more efficient to place check-out counters throughout the store (now euphemistically named "customer service" counters); you’ll find that set-up in Macy’s, JCPenney, Dillard’s and the like. The concept in and of itself isn’t necessarily faulty – the problem is that they’ve very few and far between. It’s quite possible to stand in several areas of the store, items to be purchased in hand and do a complete 360-degree turn without spotting a clue as to where to go to pay for the stuff.

It gets worse. After taking a wild guess as to where the nearest check-out counter will be (that you’ll always pick the wrong direction and walking half the length of the store before you discover it was hiding behind a pillar close to where you’d been standing in the first place is another Murphy’s Law), you finally spot one – only to discover that counter is closed. You look around frantically for someone – anyone – who looks like he or she works there who can check you out or at the very least give you directions to someone who will. Alas, no luck here, either.

So, you have two choices: start out on another search-and-seizure mission – or dump your would-be purchases on the closed counter and walk right out of the store (an option that gets more appealing the older I get).

I'm not done yet. The reason you chose the items you did often is because you had a store-issued coupon (called, also euphemistically, "loyalty" cards). Buy $50 worth of merchandise using our credit card, and we’ll give you a $10 card toward future purchases, the promise goes.

But had you taken the time to read the fine print on the back of the coupon – which requires a high-powered magnifying glass, by the way – you’d have seen the exhaustive list of items that don't qualify. Here, too, another Murphy’s Law is guaranteed to kick in: no matter what items you picked up to buy, when the cash register starts racking up the total, at least one will be exempt.

Once again, you have two choices: Go find another item that qualifies for the discount and add it to the pile (which, of course, is what store officials pray that you’ll do), or dump everything on the counter, say thanks anyway and walk out (quite satisfying from the customer’s perspective, I’m here to report).

In the interest of fairness, I must point out that most, but not all, stores are guilty of this latter practice. My husband and I have become frequent customers (translate to a term retailers understand: Loyal) at Kohl's, a department store that offers brand-name merchandise at reasonable prices every day. But Kohl's also has a loyalty program that can't be beat: When they offer extra discounts -- such as an extra 15% off for senior citizens -- they mean exactly that. Use their credit card and you'll get the discount on anything you buy; no excuses and no exceptions, including stuff that's already marked way down.

Last, but hardly least, it's about style, stupid. Admittedly, I'm a grandmother four times over; but if I can believe what friends, co-workers and family members tell me, I'm still a fairly young-looking, and certainly young-acting one. Yes, I still wear shorts in the summer; but I also want a little give in the waistband and something that doesn't expose skin 5 inches below my belly button. Yes, I love colorful underwear and T-shirts; but my soon-to-be 67 year-old bottom needs more coverage than thongs provide, and I'd like my T-shirts to come out of the dryer roughly the same size as when they went in (and spare me the Miss Kitties, Hannah Montanas and other cutsie logos).

To my dismay, though, most stores offer clothing for two types of customers: those age 16 and under and twig-sized, and elderly men and women who wouldn't dream of going barefoot, even on a beach, or sitting on the floor to play Scrabble or letting a single ray of sun touch their skin.

I suspect I'm not alone. After all, just look at what's left over at the end of each season. No matter how far down this stuff is marked, nobody's buying it (unless perhaps they need an inexpensive gift for someone in the aforementioned groups). Look too at the amount of the leftovers; could any store buyer in his or her right mind actually have believed they'd sell 300 chartreuse knit camisoles (affectionately known as "camis") emblazoned with a puking red dragon?

Ah, but my opinion apparently doesn't count any more. Never mind that my age group has more disposable income than any other (well, at least we did until the economy started to go belly-up). No, they say, it's all about building loyal customers. Young people, you see, are demanding; for now, they're all about wheedling their parents till they get what they want. But in five or 10 years, they'll be grown-up consumers, and they're sure to stick with the stores and brands that served them well all those years ago.

Doesn't anyone else believe that in five or 10 or 15 years, they'll have cajoling kids of their own, and they'll be looking for ways to save money. They'll want clothing that doesn't make them look like a Paris Hilton wannabe or their 81-year-old grandma (which will be me by then). They'll want checkout counters at the ready so they can get their screaming youngsters in and out in a flash. And they'll want loyalty programs that eliminate guesswork. And whichever store gives all this to them is the one that will win their business -- just like it's winning mine now.

And they, too, will have something to look forward to at the end of the season: I have no doubt that those 300 chartreuse camis will be hanging on the clearance racks once again.

Or Is It Just Me?

Phishing for Suckers

Is It Just Me, or are more phishing scams showing up in our e-mail boxes? The bulk of those I receive are either offering me the thrill of a better sex life or warning me that one of my financial accounts has been compromised. The latter always ask me to update my account before I lose everything -- using, of course, the link they helpfully provide in the body of the e-mail.

Problem is, I don't even have an account with most of these financial institutions -- although I've heard from a couple of banks at which I do, as well as eBay and PayPal, at both of which I'm a registered user. So bad is the problem that I keep a list of e-mail addresses of legitimate financial institutions near the computer so I can forward the offending messages (they need the entire message, including headers and footers, if they have any hope of tracking them down and shutting them up).

Conversely, it seems we’re getting far fewer telemarketing phone calls -- and I'm happy to credit national and state Do Not Call lists for the decrease; we started to notice a substantial drop-off not long after we signed up. And in our area, attorneys general from both Ohio and Pennsylvania have been pursuing violators aggressively -- kudos to them -- and that's no doubt helped as well.

I must emphasize, though, that of the two forms of deception, I'm far less bothered by the phishing scams than the phone calls. Most of the time, the e-mail phishing schemes are easy to spot and can be deleted with a quick click (and needless to say, I make it a point to never click through on any link that comes in an e-mail message unless I'm absolutely certain from whence it came and to where it leads).

The same is true of snail mail come-ons; with a few notable exceptions -- those envelopes that say something like "account information inside" -- it's easy to tell the sales pitches from the important mail. While it's a bit of a nuisance to carry the junk inside the house and drop it into the trash, I had to go to the mailbox anyway, so there's no real inconvenience.

Not so with a phone call. We have Caller ID, yes, but in order to see who's on the other end of a call, my husband or I have to stop whatever we're doing and go to the phone. Sometimes, we might happen to be sitting close to the phone; other times, we might be doing laundry in the basement or taking a bath. We can, and do, let the answering machine take over at times like this, but not all that infrequently, we're expecting an important call and need to see who the caller is immediately. Discovering that it's an unknown caller or toll-free call -- both virtually guarantees that the person on the other end will be making a sales pitch -- after we've dropped everything is one of the most frustrating, annoying experiences in the world.

Some of our friends have circumvented the problem by adding some kind of "privacy manager" to their phones; they provide family and friends with a numeric code that will allow their calls to go through. Calls from anyone who fails to enter the code are blocked, so the phone never rings. It is, I admit, a workable option.

But it's also one I object to strenuously. Homeowners shouldn't be forced to pay for devices -- and that includes answering machines and Caller ID -- just to keep unwanted salespeople out of their own homes. It's my home and my telephone, both of which I paid for. I didn't buy either one for the purpose of sharing with people I have no interest in seeing or talking to.
Of course, telemarketers will claim they’re offering us an "opportunity" to get a great deal or contribute to a worthy cause. They'll argue that prohibiting their calls deprives them of the right to earn a living.

Bullpucky. I'm the one who gets to decide whether I need or want a product or service and when, and from whom I'll purchase it. As such, I'd be happy as a clam to see tougher laws for telemarketers -- what's in place now has so many loopholes that just about any company intent on getting through can find one (most charities and politicians are exempt, for instance, as is anyone you've ever in your life purchased anything from or signed up for, as in a raffle ticket to win a car -- all of which falls under the "prior relationship" provision).

These back-door callers don't realize (or care) that violating the privacy of my home is an instant guarantee that they'll never make a sale to me -- not over the phone and not in their places of business. Ever.

Hey, that's just my observation. Is It Just Me?