Biden: Supreme Court Packing
If Joe Biden has ever had a strong incentive to add more seats to the Supreme Court, the recent Supreme Court decision against Joe Biden’s loan forgiveness program is just that incentive. Let’s explore.
Legal Merit and Standing
The Supreme Court is, at this point, simply going through the motions. This once seemingly impartial entity is simply pretending to be a fair and just body, but is now an almost completely Republican owned and partisan entity targeting the Democrats (and Democracy) at every turn. It can do this because of the way the court is now packed across party lines, in a highly partisan way.
However, it’s easy for these Republican Justices to pretend to use legal jurisprudence in the guise of their fully partisan agenda. It’s sickening and disheartening that people who have been put in a significant position of supposedly unbiased power in the United States can become yet another pawn of biased politics; wielding their judicial power like a weapon and targeting it firmly against the opposing political party and ultimately using their power against the very American people they swore to protect. That’s not justice.
If anyone has weaponized anything, it’s Donald Trump. With his court packing of the Supreme Court, this is exactly where the United States firmly sits. The Republicans have now firmly weaponized the Supreme Court against the Democrats and, more importantly, against the American people. It’s a sickening turn of events. It also signifies, once again, the destruction of the American people, America’s Democracy and the further erosion of America’s constitution.
Democrat Party
I’m not a Democrat by any stretch. I am also not a Republican. I’m a non-partisan writer who sits somewhere in the middle. I also don’t identify with either of these current two political parties. I don’t like how either of these two entities operate; neither of which actually perform their services on behalf of the American people for which they were elected. Both parties certainly make bold claims about what they are doing is “for the American people”, but the reality is, they do not and they haven’t worked for the betterment of America in a very, very long time.
With the above said, I can sniff out partisan politic antics instantly. This recent Supreme Court ruling against Biden’s loan forgiveness has the guise of seeming legit and above board, but underneath that legal facade, this SCOTUS ruling is 100% driven by partisan politics and is about as far against American betterment as one can get.
The Democrats don’t deserve to be harangued by Republicans any more than Republicans deserve to be harangued by Democrats. However, Republicans have been much more actively on the offensive against the Democrats (and ultimately against America) than vice versa. The Democrats have mostly been attempting to stay out of the Republican’s childish fray. Yet, the Republicans constantly keep pushing the Democrat-bad buttons, with Fox News Network taking this Republican button pushing to entirely unnecessary extremes.
Being nasty and vile towards anyone else is not what politics is about. It’s not what America is about. Yet, here we have supposedly conservative Christians taking this “nasty game” as far as they possibly can. How can ANYONE proclaim to be a conservative Christian and hold these nasty, vile and disgusting behaviors dear? Disgusting.
Both parties have lost sight of the true agenda of elected (and appointed) representatives. Instead of spending inordinate amounts of time in-fighting with one another, that time could be better spent actually producing legitimate, workable fixes for America, America’s Economy and the American people. Instead, we have the SCOTUS, who incidentally should have even declined to accept this case entirely, is instead poking their mostly Republican heads into a case were they have no business… and worse, making biased political statements with their actions.
Biden’s Supreme Court Revision
It’s time for Joe Biden to wake up. He can’t afford to sit idly by while Republicans run roughshod all over America, the American people and America’s constitution. Instead, Biden has a way to bring balance back to the Supreme Court. I’m not saying that the Supreme Court will be in any way fixed by Biden packing this court. Oh, no no no. That will take much more effort and changes. However, giving equal balance back to both liberals and conservatives alike on this court will at least make this court’s rulings much more fair and take this now unfair balance of power back out of the hands of the now Republican packed Supreme Court.
Right now, the court has 9 justices. However, there are 13 Federal circuit courts that sit directly under the Supreme Court. At the time when 9 justices were implemented, there were 9 circuit courts. This meant there was 1 justice for every circuit court. Since the circuit courts have increased to 13, our justices are now out of alignment against the circuit courts. This means that to put the SCOTUS back into balance against our now 13 circuit courts, 4 more justices must be added to the Supreme Court.
If Joe Biden pushes to have 4 new justices added to this court, he may even choose to nominate these justices, making the balance of the court change to 6 Republicans and 7 Democrats. That could possibly bring some semblance of balance back to the court, but also possibly push it back over to the Democrats. That’s a small price to pay to get this court out of its current heavy Republican imbalance. One extra Democrat justice is way more balanced than the current 3 extra Republican justices.
But the Court Isn’t Partisan?
No court should be partisan or hold with any partisan politics. Yet, we know that every person in the United States has their own opinions and must be allowed to vote in elections. This means that, yes, even these Supreme Court Justices have their own political affiliations… if even just at the moment of entering the ballot booth. Unfortunately as humans, we are fallible and subject to subjective personal whims. Sometimes those whims are of our own making and sometimes those whims are of others making.
Unfortunately, because these justices are appointed by politically affiliated and motivated Presidents, this places a political burden on top of the person being appointed to that judicial role. Meaning, if a Democrat President appoints a Justice, this likely means that that appointed person is also of a Democrat leaning persuasion and vice versa with the Republicans and conservatism. It may further mean that the Justice may feel the need to repay that appointment over time. This further means that as this person rules in their position as Justice, their political persuasion is likely to become part of that thought process when producing judicial opinions; thought processes that might actually help out the person who appointed that Justice to the bench.
Joe Biden’s Debt Absolution
I would be remiss by not bringing up this point. Some have argued that Joe Biden, as President, didn’t (and doesn’t) have the authority to forgive student loans in that large of a quantity; that the amount of money being forgiven by the government should have needed Congressional approval.
I won’t get into the nitty-gritty of this argument here because that’s an argument that cannot be decided by an independent blog. Suffice it to say, however, that as President of the United States, the person elected to this position has tremendous power over the American people. Whether that extends to forgiving student loans or other types of debt relief, that will have to be up to the courts to decide.
Clearly, though, if Franklin D. Roosevelt was given the broad authority to implement his “New Deal” to reinvigorate the then flagging economy, then Joe Biden should have had similar authority to implement his “Student Loan Debt Relief” program for the same reason amidst COVID. Let’s move on.
Re-balancing The Court
It’s clear that without a rebalance of the Supreme Court that this so-called conservative court will continue to run roughshod all over the United States of America and America’s Constitution. If we’re trying to heal this partisan divide, then the only way to do this is through bringing balance back to this court.
Thus, the only way forward is then by increasing the number of seats by 4. This increase also makes more sense when looking at the now 13 Federal Circuit courts that exist just below the Supreme Court. As stated above, increasing the number of SCOTUS seats to 13 would be firmly in-line with the current number compared to the 9 justices we was had when there were only 9 circuit courts. One Justice should exist for every circuit court that exists. That also means expanding the SCOTUS each time a new circuit court opens.
Biden must seriously consider rebalancing the court so that four new Justices are added to offset the conservative imbalance now held on this court. The only way the American people can be properly served is if the balance of conservative justices and liberal justices is near equal. This way, opinions written (even if of a specific political persuasion) cannot imbalance justice in the favor of one side or the other.
Taking Bias Out of the Justices
This is actually impossible. There is no way to do this short of forcing Justices to give up their ability to vote after they take their oath as Justice; that and having nominations come from anonymous sources, not the President. When Justices can’t vote in elections they shouldn’t be swayed by political actors. Unfortunately, that’s never likely to fly with the Justices. Even then, they’ll have spouses and children who can vote and who can sway the thoughts and minds of these Justices at home.
Political influence is everywhere. Even were Justices to give up their right to vote simply to take their seat as Justice, that wouldn’t remove years of ingrained political persuasion before they ever took their seat. It also won’t remove outside influences from those nearest to these Justices. It also won’t remove undue influence by those in political power near to the SCOTUS, including the President, Vice President and Congress.
Further Court Balance
One idea that clearly needs to be implemented is term limits. If four additional seats are added to the bench, these new seats should come without lifetime appointment. In fact, all of the current seats’ lifetime appointments should end after the next person is appointed. Lifetime appointments for the Supreme Court need to end completely.
How long should Justices be allowed to serve? They should be allowed to serve no longer than 10 years or until they are aged 65. If a Justice is appointed to a seat and they are aged 58, they will only have until age 65 to serve. After that, forced retirement and a new appointment is required.
More than this, every four years each Justice (including the Chief Justice) must be brought before Congress for a reconfirmation hearing. This allows Congress to vacate a Justice seat should the need arise. If a specific Justice has made rulings in inappropriate ways and/or having taken inappropriate largesse, having reconfirmation hearings every four years would allow Congress to vacate that seat, giving better checks and balances over inappropriate situations.
Once a seat is vacated, it is on the President to find and appoint a new person. If a Justice is forcibly vacated from their seat, they are no longer allowed to hold a seat on the Supreme Court Justice again nor serve in any other Federal court. They may join lower non-federal courts as a judge, but may no longer hold other federal judicial roles. Once removed, it’s permanent removal from all federal judicial positions. This is effectively federal disbarment for judges.
Such reconfirmation hearings should further entice the current Chief Justice to both police and take internal action against inappropriate Justices instead of waiting for Congress to take action. If Congress is forced to vacate that seat, that person cannot serve nor be appointed to work in the Federal judicial system again.
Such actions above may seem punitive, but that’s clearly what’s needed. Right now, only the Supreme Court can police and punish itself and clearly that is not happening. Leaving it up to people to police themselves clearly means no policing at all. This means that, as has been shown, the SCOTUS is unwilling to take action against its own. This same goes for Congress as Congress is also unwilling to take action against their own (an article for another day).
Fair and Balanced Court
Bringing all of these changes to the SCOTUS means a much more fair and balanced court. If there are ramifications to wrongdoing, making the wrong choices or, indeed, taking actions of malicious intent, there should be severe consequences.
Today, there are no consequences. It means that enterprising hackers can hack this court and use its lack of governance against it. This is exactly what’s going on right now. Hackers have infiltrated this court and are using the lack of checks and balances, lifetime appointments in coupling with this court’s lack of internal governance against not only the court, but against the American people. This was not intended by the framers of the Constitution.
The Constitution intended and “trusted” for appointees to be of highly upstanding, moral and ethical fiber in taking on these roles. Unfortunately, it didn’t foresee people of ill intent and of questionable morality and ethics to be appointed to these roles. A person who is willing to sit in a grey area of intent can subvert and use the court’s “trust” against it, particularly when there are multiple Justices colluding in this nefarious role. Worse, the court’s highly lax internal punishment structures when combined with lifetime appointments makes it ripe for this kind of abuse. In other words, it only takes one person of criminal intent to become a Justice on that court and the United States can crumble from within.
Again, none of this was intended, nor foresaw by the framers of the Constitution. Yet, here we are and here we sit. Court reform is in order and the above is a good, solid way of getting this ball rolling. Unfortunately, the current lifetime appointees seem guaranteed in their roles. However, eventually they will retire, relinquishing their seat. Until then, adding four more seats all serving without lifetime appointments and with forced reconfirmation every four years ensures that at least the newest seat-holders should remain of upstanding moral and ethical fiber, else their seat can be vacated and reassigned to someone who is willing to uphold the highest ethics and values.
↩︎
Rant Time: Google doesn’t understand COPPA
We all know what Google is, but what is COPPA? COPPA stands for the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and is legislation designed to incidentally protect children by protecting their personal data given to web site operators. YouTube has recently made a platform change allegedly around COPPA, but it is entirely misguided. It also shows that Google doesn’t fundamentally understand the COPPA legislation. Let’s explore.
COPPA — What it isn’t
The COPPA body of legislation is intended to protect how and when a child’s personal data may be collected, stored, used and processed by web site operators. It has very specific verbiage describing how and when such data can be collected and used. It is, by its very nature, a data protection and privacy act. It protects the data itself… and, by extension, the protection of that data hopes to protect the child. This Act isn’t intended to protect the child directly and it is misguided to assume that it does. COPPA protects personal private data of children.
By the above, that means that the child is incidentally protected by how their collected data can (or cannot) be used. For the purposes of COPPA, a “child” is defined to be any person under the age of 13. Let’s look at a small portion of the body of this text.
General requirements. It shall be unlawful for any operator of a Web site or online service directed to children, or any operator that has actual knowledge that it is collecting or maintaining personal information from a child, to collect personal information from a child in a manner that violates the regulations prescribed under this part. Generally, under this part, an operator must:
(a) Provide notice on the Web site or online service of what information it collects from children, how it uses such information, and its disclosure practices for such information (§312.4(b));
(b) Obtain verifiable parental consent prior to any collection, use, and/or disclosure of personal information from children (§312.5);
(c) Provide a reasonable means for a parent to review the personal information collected from a child and to refuse to permit its further use or maintenance (§312.6);
(d) Not condition a child’s participation in a game, the offering of a prize, or another activity on the child disclosing more personal information than is reasonably necessary to participate in such activity (§312.7); and
(e) Establish and maintain reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of personal information collected from children (§312.8).
This pretty much sums up the tone for what follows in the body text of this legislation. What it essentially states is all about “data collection” and what you (as a web site operator) must do specifically if you intend to collect specific data from someone under the age of 13… and, more specifically, what data you can and cannot collect.
YouTube and Google’s Misunderstanding of COPPA
YouTube’s parent company is Google. That means that I may essentially interchange “Google” for “YouTube” because both are one-in-the-same company. With that said, let’s understand how Google / YouTube fundamentally does not understand the COPPA body of legislation.
Google has recently rolled out a new feature to its YouTube content creators. It is a checkbox both as a channel wide setting and as an individual video setting. This setting sets a flag whether the video is targeted towards children or not (see image below for this setting’s details). Let’s understand Google’s misunderstanding of COPPA.
COPPA is a data protection act. It is not a child protection act. Sure, it incidentally protects children because of what is allowed to be collected, stored and processed, but make no mistake, it protects collected data directly, not children. With that said, checking a box on a video whether it is appropriate for children has nothing whatever to do with data collection. Let’s understand why.
Google has, many years ago in fact, already implemented a system to prevent “children” (as defined by COPPA) to sign up for and use Google’s platforms. What that means is when someone signs up for a Google account, that person is asked questions to ascertain the person’s age. If that age is identified as under 13, that account is classified by Google as in use by a “child”. Once Google identifies a child, it is then obligated to uphold ALL laws governed by COPPA (and other applicable child privacy laws) … that includes all data collection practices required by COPPA and other applicable laws. It can also then further apply Google related children protections against that account (i.e. to prevent the child from viewing inappropriate content on YouTube). Google would have needed to uphold these data privacy laws since the year 2000, when COPPA was enacted. If Google has failed to protect a child’s collected data or failed to uphold COPPA’s other provisions, then that’s on Google. It is also a situation firmly between Google and the FTC … the governmental body tasked with enforcing the COPPA legislation. Google solely collects the data. Therefore, it is exclusively on Google if that data is used or collected in inappropriate ways, counter to COPPA’s requirements.
YouTube’s newest “not appropriate for children” flag
As of November 2019, YouTube has implemented a new flag for YouTube content creators. The channel-wide setting looks like so:
This setting, for all intents and purposes, isn’t related to COPPA. COPPA doesn’t care whether video content is targeted towards children. COPPA cares about how data is collected from children and how that data is then used by web sites. COPPA is, as I said above, all about data collection practices, not about whether content is targeted towards children.
Let’s understand that in the visual entertainment area, there are already ratings systems which apply. Systems such as the ESRB ratings system founded in 1994. This system specifically sets ratings for video games depending on the types of content contained within. For TV shows, there is the TV Parental Guidelines which began in 1996 and was proposed between the US Congress, the TV industry and FCC. These guidelines rate TV shows such as TV-Y, TV-14 or TV-MA depending, again, on the content within. This was mandated in 1997 by the US Government due to its stranglehold on TV broadcast licenses. For theatrical films, there’s the MPAA’s movie ratings system which began in 1968. So, it’s not as if there aren’t already effective content ratings systems available. These voluntary systems have been in place for many years already.
For YouTube, marking your channel or video content as “made for kids” has nothing whatever to do with COPPA legislated data collection practices.
YouTube Creators
Here is exactly where we see Google and YouTube’s fundamental misunderstanding of COPPA. COPPA is about the protection and collection of data from children. Google collects, stores and uses this and all data it collects. YouTube creators have very, very limited access to any of this Google-collected data. YouTube creators have no hand in its collection or its use. Google controls all of the data collection on YouTube. With the exception of comments and the list of subscribers of a channel, the majority of the data collected and supplied by Google to the creators is almost exclusively limited to aggregate unpersonalized statistical data. Even then, this data can be inaccurate depending on what the Google account ID stated when they signed up. Still, the limited personal subscriber data it does supply to content creators is limited to the subscriber’s ID only. Google offers its content creators no access to deeper personal data, not even the age of its subscribers.
Further, Google (and pretty much every other web site) relies on truthfulness when people sign up for services. Google does not in any way verify the information given to Google during the signup process or that this information is in any way accurate or truthful. Indeed, Google doesn’t even verify the identity of the person using the account or even require the use of real names. The only time Google does ANY level of identity verification is when using Google Wallet. Even then, it’s only as a result of needing identity verification due to possible credit card fraud issues. Google Wallet is a pointless service that many other payment systems do better, such as Apple Pay, Amazon Checkout and, yes, PayPal. I digress.
With that said, Google is solely responsible for all data collection practices associated with YouTube (and its other properties) including storing, processing and managing of that data. YouTube creators have no control over what YouTube (or Google) chooses to collect, store or disseminate. Indeed, YouTube creators have no control over YouTube’s data collection or storage practices whatsoever.
This new alleged “COPPA mechanism” that YouTube has implemented has nothing whatever to do with data collection practices and everything to do with content which might be targeted towards “children”. Right now, this limited mechanism is pretty much a binary system (a very limited system). The channel either does or it doesn’t target content towards children (either channel as a whole or video by video). It’s entirely unclear what happens when you do or don’t via YouTube, though some creators have had seeming bad luck with their content, which has been manually reviewed by YouTube staff and misclassified as “for children” when the content clearly is not. These manual overrides have even run counter to the global channel settings, which have been set to “No, set this channel as not made for kids.”
Clearly, this new mechanism has nothing to do with data collection and everything to do with classifying which content is suitable for children and which isn’t. This defines a …
Ratings System
Ratings systems in entertainment content are nothing new. TV has had a content rating systems since the mid 90s. Movies have had ratings systems since the late 60s. Video games have had them since the mid 90s. COPPA, on the other hand, has entirely nothing to do with ratings or content. It is legislation that protects children by protecting their data. It’s pretty straightforward what COPPA covers, but one thing it does not cover is whether video content is appropriate to be viewed by children. Indeed, COPPA isn’t a ratings system. It is child data protection legislation.
How YouTube got this law’s interpretation so entirely wrong is anyone’s guess. I can’t even fathom how Google could have been led this astray. Perhaps Google’s very own lawyers are simply inept and not at all versed in COPPA? I have no idea… but whatever led YouTube’s developers to thinking the above mechanism in any way relates to COPPA is entirely wrong thinking. No where does COPPA legislate YouTube video content appropriateness. Categorizing content is entirely up to a ratings system to handle.
Indeed, YouTube is trudging on very thin ice with the FTC. Not only did they interpret the COPPA legislation completely wrong, they have implemented “a fix” even more wrongly. What Google and YouTube has done is shoot themselves in the foot… not once, but twice. The second time is that Google has fully admitted that they don’t even have a functional working ratings system. Indeed, it doesn’t… and now everyone knows it.
Google has now additionally admitted that children under the age of 13 use YouTube by the addition of this “new” mechanism. With this one mechanism, Google has admitted to many things about children using its platform… which means YouTube and Google are both now in the hot seat with regards to COPPA. They must now completely ensure that YouTube (and Google by extension) is fully and solely complying with the letter of COPPA’s verbiage by collecting children’s data.
YouTube Creators Part II
YouTube creators have no control over what Google collects from its users, that’s crystal clear. YouTube creators also don’t have access to view most of this data or access to modify anything related to this data collection system. Only Google has that level of access. Because Google controls its own data collection practices, it is on Google to protect any personal information it may have received by children using its platform.
That also means that content creators should be entirely immune from prosecution over such data collection practices… after all, the creators don’t own or control Google’s data collection systems.
This new YouTube mechanism seems to imply that creators have some level of liability and/or culpability for Google’s collection practices, when creators simply and clearly do not. Even the FTC made a striking statement that they may try to “go after” content creators. I’m not even sure how that’s possible under COPPA. Content creators don’t collect, store or manage data about children, regardless of the content that they create. The only thing content creators control is appropriateness of the content towards children… and that has nothing to do with COPPA and everything to do with a ratings system… a system that Google does not even have in place within YouTube.
Content creators, however, can voluntarily label their content as TV-MA or whatever they deem is appropriate based on the TV Parental Guidelines. After all, YouTube is more like TV than it is like a video game. Therefore, YouTube should offer and have in place the same ratings system as is listed in the TV Parental Guidelines. This recent COPPA-attributed change is actually YouTube’s efforts at enacting a content ratings system, albeit an extremely poor attempt at one. As I said, creators can only specify the age appropriateness of the content that they create. YouTube is simply the platform where it is shown.
FTC going after YouTube Creators?
Google controls its data collections systems, not its content creators (though YouTube does hold leverage over whether content is or remains monetized). What that means is that it makes absolutely no sense for the FTC to legally go after content creators based on violations of COPPA. There may be other legislation they can lean on, but COPPA isn’t it. COPPA also isn’t intended to be a “catch all” piece of legislation to protect children’s behaviors on the Internet. It is intended to protect how data is collected and used by children under 13 years of age… that’s it. COPPA isn’t intended to be used as a “ratings system” for appropriateness by video sharing platforms like YouTube.
I can’t see even one judge accepting, let alone prosecuting such a clear cut case of legal abuse of the justice system. Going after Google for COPPA violations? Sure. They stored and collected that data. Going after the YouTube content creators? No, I don’t think so. They created a video and uploaded it, but that had nothing whatever to do with how Google controls, manages or collects data from children.
If the US Federal Government wants to create law to manage appropriateness of Internet content, then they need to draft it up and pass it. COPPA isn’t intended for that purpose. Voluntary ratings systems have been in place for years including within motion pictures, TV and now video games. So then why is YouTube immune from such rating systems? Indeed, it’s time YouTube was forced to implement a proper ratings system instead of this haphazard binary system under the false guise of COPPA.
Content Creator Advice
If you are a YouTube content creator (or create on any other online platform), you should take advantage of the thumbnail and describe the audience your content targets. The easiest way to do this is to use the same ratings system implemented by the TV Parental Guidance system… such as TV-Y, TV-14 and TV-MA. Placing this information firmly on the thumbnail and also placing it onto the video at the beginning of your video explicitly states towards which age group and audience your content is targeted. By voluntarily rating not only the thumbnail, but also the content itself in the first 5 minutes of the video opening, your video cannot be misconstrued for any other group or audience. This means that even though your video is not intended for children, placing the TV Parental Guidance rating literally onto the video intentionally states that fact in plain sight.
If a YouTube employee manually reclassifies your video as being “for children” even when it isn’t, labeling your content in the video’s opening as TV-MA explicitly states that the program is not suitable for children. You might even create an additional disclaimer as some TV programs do stating:
This content is not suitable for all audiences. Some content may be considered disturbing or controversial. Viewer or parental discretion is advised.
Labeling your video means that even the FTC can’t argue that your video somehow inappropriately targeted children… even though this new YouTube system has nothing to do with COPPA. Be cautious, use common sense and use best practices when creating and uploading videos to YouTube. YouTube isn’t there to protect you, the creator. The site is there to protect YouTube and Google. In this case, this new creator feature is entirely misguided as a COPPA helper, when it is clearly intended to be a ratings system.
Before you go…
One last thing… Google controls everything about the YouTube platform including the “recommended” lists of videos. If, for whatever reason, Google chooses to promote a specific video towards an unintended audience, the YouTube creator has no control over this fact. In point of fact, the content creator has almost no control over any promotion or placement of their video within YouTube. The only exception is if YouTube allows for paid promotion of video content (and they probably do). After all, YouTube is in it for the $$$. If you’re willing to throw some of your money at Google, I’m quite sure they’d be willing to help you out. Short of paying Google for video placement, however, all non-paid placement is entirely at the sole discretion of Google. The YouTube creator has no control over their video’s placement within “recommended” lists or anywhere else on YouTube.
↩︎
Toys R Us: Say Goodbye to an Era
For many, we grew up with Toys Я Us as the go to place to find that cool new toy, game, doll, action figure, Teddy Ruxpin, train set, learning toy, crayons, movie or even video games. Times are a changin’ folks and Toys R Us now finds itself way less than one Barbie away from permanent closure. Let’s explore.
Update from the News Desk — 2018-03-14
Toys R Us headquarters has apparently informed all US and UK employees on Wednesday, March 14th that all US and UK locations would be closed, a move that would lose 33,000 jobs. This would be one of the biggest retailer liquidations. CEO David Brandon intended to file paperwork to begin the liquidation proceedings on Wednesday.
From small to BIG to defunct
In the 70s, I remember toy stores primarily consisting of smaller retailers in malls, usually carrying Lincoln logs, wooden toys or learning toys. While I didn’t mind visiting these places, they felt more like a library than a toy store. They also didn’t carry much of the things that I liked. It wouldn’t be until sometime the mid-70s when a Toy R Us opened near my house. That’s when toy shopping all changed, at least for me.
I’m sure my parents hated taking me to Toys R Us, just as so many parents do. For us kids, it was like a day at Disneyland: a gold mine, a treasure trove, a place of dreams. Unfortunately, the parents were having none of it… or at least, as little as they could walk out of the store carrying. Good on them, but that didn’t make Toys R Us any less magical to a 8-10 year old. We loved it, we loved going there and we especially loved it when we got to take something home with us.
Geoffrey
I was never a super big giraffe fan, but Geoffrey was a fun and charming mascot constantly pointing out cool new things in the store. I would come to see Geoffrey as cute mascot designed to help me find new stuff. Not always, but a good bit of the time. Sometimes he was just present, like Mickey Mouse. That Giraffe always made me smile because I knew that I was at that magical place, like Disneyland but local. Over the years, Geoffrey began being used less and less by TRU, but he’s still considered their mascot.
Every once in a while, Toys R Us would offer an enter-to-win a fill-your-cart shopping spree. I always wanted to win one of those as a child, but alas never did. To think what I would have filled my cart with. The mind boggles, if only because some of those toys are considered highly collectible today. Though, those toys most assuredly would not have remained closed in their packaging after making their way home.
Growing Up
As I grew into my 20s, got my own car and job, my relationship with Toys R Us changed. No longer was it that magical place, but it now had firmly become a store and I was a consumer. Still, it was a place to go to find that hot new toy that everyone’s talking about. It also became the place to find computers and video games. If I couldn’t find it at Target or Kmart or, later, Walmart, I could almost certainly find it at Toys R Us or Kaybee or Children’s Palace (competitors at the time) and to a much lesser degree FAO Schwarz. Toys R Us was always the first place to go, then the others as they were less reliable.
Dominoes
As the competitors fell over one at a time, first Children’s Palace in 90s, FAO Schwarz in early 00s, then in the middle 00’s, Kaybee Toys, Toys R Us was still standing and, in 2009 would acquire the FAO Schwarz brand, but would sell it off in 2014. It was (and currently is) the place to go to find all things toys. Unlike Target and Walmart that choose to stock limited toy items, Toys R Us (like the previous Children’s Palance and Kaybee) still carries aisle after aisle of wide ranging toys you can only find at Toys R Us. You simply can’t find this selection of toy items at a discount department store. This is why I always ended up at Toys R Us in search of fun, exciting new things.
The Mistakes
Throughout the later years, I’ve grown a love-hate relationship with the Toys R Us chain. Not only because I worked there for a short time while in my 20s, but also because the management does a lot of things that don’t make sense. For example, Babies R Us. For a time, Toys R Us stores devoted half of their space to baby goods. I don’t have a baby, so there’s no interest in that. Yet, Toys R Us decided to kill half of their store space to devote to these products. This meant, less space for toys, games and other items.
I understand that the management wanted to expand their selection into babyland, but it was a mistake to take away valuable Toys R Us aisle space to devote to all-things-baby. This, in my opinion, was one of the biggest mistakes the Toys R Us management foisted upon its stores. That was, until they finally spun Babies R Us into its own stores and gave it its own space.
Later, the management decided to do away with separate Babies R Us stores and chose to abut the two stores together for one seamless one-store experience. That was at least better than taking away shelf space from an already cramped toy store, but even that was unnecessary and, in my opinion, a mistake. They can be next to each other, but walled off and separate stores with separate stock and separate staff. I know why they did chose to hook them together. They did it so they could use one set of checkout lanes, one set of cashiers and one set of staff to stock both stores.
The X
At around the time that Babies R Us was coming into its own as a separate store chain, Toys R Us decided to change its shelving layout. Instead of the more logical long rows running from the front to the back of the store (with middle store aisle breaks) which made it easy to find everything, the store layout designer decided to change the aisles to be side to side and then create X shaped rows in the middle of the store. Not only were these rows much harder to navigate, the layout of the aisles were crippled as a result. This layout made finding things incredibly hard and it seemed like they had less shelf space.
Not only was everything now moved around haphazardly, it made finding what you’re looking for overly hard. Meaning, now you had to navigate the whole store looking at everything just to find that thing.
Maybe the designers thought this was a good idea? It wasn’t. This is the second mistake from Toys R Us management.
Overbuying and Stocking the Wrong Toys
I don’t know how many times I visited Toys R Us in the 90s only to find the same toys every time I visited, sometimes months apart. These we affectionately call peg warmers. This mistake continues to plague Toys R Us to this day. Not only did Toys R Us have incredible buying power way back when, they just didn’t use it to their advantage. Instead, they would continually overbuy on dud toys and not buy enough on the hot toys.
You can’t sell toys that you don’t have in stock. For example, Cabbage Patch kids. When that craze hit, they couldn’t keep them on the shelves. You’d think Toys R Us could have negotiated with the manufacturer and buy 10x the amount they originally bought… simply so they could fill the demand. Sure, there might be a drought while the manufacturer created more, but eventually they would have enough stock quickly to satisfy demand. Alas, they didn’t and the shelves remained bare until the toys were so cold you couldn’t even give them away. Too little, too late.
Further, Toys R Us needed to let the local managers order stock for their specific location to stock toys that are regionally hot. Not every toy sells the same in every store, yet Toys R Us felt the need to send cookie cutter stock out to every single store. If you walked into a Toys R Us in any state, you’d see identical stock. Each store manager needed to be given free reign to specifically order stock in sizes that made sense for amount of local demand they were seeing for a given toy item. If they couldn’t keep a specific skateboard stocked, then the manager should be able to order the proper amount to cover the local demand from their store. In fact, stores that couldn’t sell the item should have shuffled the stock over to stores where the demand was high. That’s smart inventory management. Nope.
Store managers should also be able to nix slow selling items from their shelves and replace it with hotter selling toys. Why continue to carry that obscure toy that you can’t even clearance out when you can sell 100x as many Tickle Me Elmos? Having great selection is fine as long as you’re not stocking 50 of an item you can’t even give away. Again, smart inventory management people. Stock them in small quantities, sure, but not in the quantities that each store was getting. Shuffle extra stock to other stores that have none. Remember, I worked there, I saw the stock amounts in the stock room.
Nope. Toys R Us continued to make this mistake year after year.
Over-expansion
Nearly every business thinks they should open as many stores as physically possible. But, you can’t do this when most of your stores are operating in the RED. Toys R Us was no exception. This chain continually felt the need to open new stores rather than trying to shore up their existing stores and get them each to an individually profitable status. If the management had stopped their expansion plans and, instead, focused their efforts on making each store profitable by the end of Q1 each year, Toys R Us would not be in this predicament.
Dated Store Displays
Not too long ago (perhaps early 00s), Toys R Us did away with the X aisle layout and converted them back into horizontal rows once again. However, the aisles now run left to right in-store rather than the original front to back design (which was arguably its best floor plan). Unfortunately, their fixtures are all incredibly dated pegboard and 70s style metal fixtures. They look like they’re straight out of a 70s store… even when the store is brand new. Maybe these are the cheapest fixtures they can buy? No idea, but they don’t look modern.
The store is also incredibly jam packed with stuff. The shelves are always full of stock yes, but it doesn’t help when the stock is old and is sitting on dated shelving units lit by 70s style fluorescent lighting fixtures.
The Business
Here’s Toys R Us’s primary operational problem and the problem that ultimately leads to where we are today. Toys R Us always relied on the holiday shopping season to pull its stores into the black. Meaning, Toys R Us always operated its stores in the RED through 80-90% of the year hoping for the holiday season to pull each store up and out and operate in the black for that year. This was the chain’s primary mistake. This operating model had been ongoing since the 80s. This was the way that TRU intentionally chose to operate its stores. This was also entirely their biggest operating failure and it’s the mistake that is now what’s threatening closure and costing TRU its business.
In addition to operating in the red, Toys R Us also didn’t wield its buying power to get the best possible credit terms, the best possible deals and the best possible return arrangements. If a toy doesn’t sell, package it up, send it to another store that can sell it or send it back to the manufacturer for full or partial credit. Let the manufacturer deal with that stock rather than trying to organically clearance out items on the shelves years later. No, get these old toys off of the shelves to make way for new toys. Fill the shelves with toys that can sell and that will pay the bills.
If you can’t pay your bills, you can’t stay in business. Business 101. Yet, Toys R Us management felt that they were above these rules. The management team felt they could continually run their stores in the red without ramifications. Well, fate has now caught up with you, Toys R Us.
Being Acquired by Private Equity Firms
Because of the way Toys R Us chose to operate its stores, it could not support being acquired in this way. This acquisition was entirely shortsighted on the part of the private equity companies involved and they (and us consumers) are the ones who are now paying the ultimate price.
In 2005, Toys R Us was acquired by a set of private equity firms. These firms included KKR & Co., Bain Capital and Vornado Realty Trust in a $7.5 billion buyout deal. These three companies (and their investors) sank $1.3 billion of their own funds into the purchase, leaving the rest of the purchase price of $6.2 billion to be made up in loans. These loans saddled Toys R Us with an over $6 billion debt burden. A debt that, because of the rather nonsensical business model that the stores had been following since the 80s, could never be recouped. All of this leads to…
Bankruptcy
In late September 2017, Toy R Us filed for bankruptcy protection against its creditors. This means that its creditors can no longer go after Toys R Us for not paying bills. It also meant that the loans left over from that terrible 2005 buyout deal could no longer collect on those loans. Of course, in return for this court issued bankruptcy protection, the company has chosen Chapter 11 to work through a plan to reorganize in a way to get themselves back to profitability and pay their creditors over time before time runs out. For the Toy R Us management, that meant finding a suitor to buy the business… because, of course, they couldn’t be bothered with actually trying to restructure the stores in a way to make them profitable. Oh, no no no.. that’s just too much work.
What? Are you kidding? Are you really expecting some well funded company to swoop into this ailing business holding onto a mountain of debt and offer to buy you? Really? The way that TRU operates is textbook operating procedure for failure. It cannot continue to operate in the way that it does. Even closing half of the stores may not be enough to solve this operating problem. It’s only surprising that it took this long for this toy chain to make it to this point. I expected this day to come a lot sooner.
Toy Collectors and Toys R Us
I full well expected to see Toys R Us fail in the 90s. However, Star Wars saw to it to keep Toys R Us in business. The Star Wars collectors came out in wild abandon to snap up tons of revamped Star Wars merchandise for not only the previous trilogy (including the Orange and Green carded Power of the Force series), but also snapping up the then new prequel trilogy toys. These toys still remained hot even after 1983’s Return of the Jedi cooled down. It all heated up again when the Prequels began in earnst in 1999 (toys beginning to appear in stores about a year earlier). Toys R Us got a reprieve from their red ledger problems due primarily to Star Wars collectors, Hasbro and a few other unrelated hot toys during the 90s (Tickle Me Elmo). Almost every year, there was some new fad that kept Toys R Us’s year end strategy in check. Though, this strategy would ultimately fail them when, in the last 10 years or so when there just haven’t been those must-have toys or collectible Star Wars toys. Even the Zhu-Zhu pets weren’t enough. Even the latest Star Wars trilogy from Disney has not had the merchandising power that the 90s saw. Though, Disney isn’t crying over what they have sold.
In fact, I’d venture to guess that the 90s collectors have all but stopped collecting and have moved on with their lives… which put a huge crimp in the Toys R Us budget. In fact, during the collector heyday of the 90s, Toys R Us did their very level best to chase away the collectors. Much to their own chagrin, they succeeded in doing so by the mid-2000s. It also doesn’t help that collectors can now buy full cases directly from places like Entertainment Earth, which no longer meant the need to scour the pegs at Toys R Us in the wee hours of the morning. You could order cases directly from the comfort of your own home, then see them delivered to your doorstep.
Amazon and Online Shopping
Because of the power of the Internet, Amazon and eBay, it’s pretty easy to find that hot toy at more reasonable prices. Yes, Toys R Us is still a staple in the current shopping landscape. When it closes, both Amazon and Entertainment Earth will simply pick up where Toy R Us left off without missing a beat. If anything, I’d suggest that Amazon pick up the Toys R Us branding at a fire sale during liquidation and rebrand the Amazon toy section to Toys R Us. Keep the TRU brand alive, but not with all of that bloated store baggage. Then, dump the Babies R Us brand entirely. You can still sell baby things, but branded as Toys R Us.
Toys R Us Closing
As I said, I have a love-hate relationship with Toys R Us. I do enjoy visiting and seeing what’s new, but every time I walk into a store, I’m confronted with the dated shelving and decoration, the continual nagging reminder of just how careless the management is and how much of a wasted opportunity that Toys R Us was when it could have become the biggest most profitable toy chain in the world. Yet, they’ve failed.
If Toys R Us can manage to pull a rabbit out of a hat at the last minute and keep the lights on, I’ll be fine with that. Sadly, I think this is likely where it will all end for Toys R Us.
Gift Cards or Rewards — Use em’ or lose ’em
If you have any remaining unused gift cards from Toys R Us, be sure to visit a store now and use them immediately. Don’t wait until after Toys R Us begins closing its stores.
Likewise, if you have any rewards points left on your rewards card, log into Toys R Us Rewards, issue certificates and use them up now. Same for Babies R Us Cashback Endless Rewards program. Otherwise, forfeit your chance to convert those points into dollars. Representatives for Toys R Us have said that they will honor gift cards, rewards points and cashback programs for 30 days. The 30 day clock likely began on Wednesday March 14th, when they filed their liquidation paperwork with the court.
I guess in an odd way, I do kind of get that shopping spree after all, and many years later. I just found that I have over 2500 points in my rewards account. That equates to a $100 shopping spree.
For my $100 in rewards points, I got a Nintendo Monopoly set, a Care Bear Grumpy Bear, Two Schliech Geoffrey branded figurines, 5 different Halo Hot Wheels, a Pit Amiibo, a Pain-Yatta Skylander, a Playmation Vision figure and two Geoffrey branded reusable shopping bags. I ended up paying $9 to cover the tax. I also bought a $5 Geoffrey gift card and immediately used it to get dock protector straps for a Nintendo Switch. I wanted the Geoffrey branded gift card as a souvenir. I’d also previously purchased the day before, two Geoffrey 18″ plush and one Geoffrey plush gift card holder, which I’ll put that used Geoffrey gift card in.
Returns and Exchanges During Liquidation
Check any purchased merchandise thoroughly for defects the same day you buy it. If there are any problems, return it the same or next day and exchange it. Don’t wait even a few days to exchange as you may not be able to find the same item. According to Toys R Us representatives, all sales are final. This means, no refunds. However, they may continue to honor exchanges for a period of time. If you’re uncertain of any of this, ask for details at the service desk before you buy.
If you’re thinking of shopping for gift items, you might want to buy elsewhere. Buying a gift for someone could mean the gift recipient can’t return or exchange the item. You don’t want to force a gift onto someone when it’s not something they want only for them to find they cannot return it.
Be that Toys R Us Kid one last time
If you grew up visiting and are as fond of Toys R Us as I am, I’d suggest for you to take a few minutes out of your day and visit your local Toys R Us to reminisce about the good ole days. Once the liquidation sales start, they’re quickly going to look like half-filled shells of a store. Note that the deadline for Toys R Us to find a buyer is early April of 2018, so visit them quick. You have less than a month.
You might even want to pick up a souvenir, such as a plush Geoffrey, to remember what was Toys R Us and what it meant to us as kids. If you want a plush Geoffrey, ask at the Customer Service desk. It seems they keep them there for some reason.
Apple’s bleeding edge
Apple loves to adopt brand new bleeding edge technologies and shun existing functional and supported technologies. Case in point, Apple’s new MacBook Pro line sports a new Thunderbolt (Lightpeak) port. So, yeah, while this port is capable of 10Gb per second, there are no peripherals yet available for this technology. But, instead of placing USB 3 ports (capable of 5Gb per second) onto the MacBook Pro, they instead decided to skip this recent technology. So, the MacBook Pro comes shipped with dog slow USB 2.0 ports running at a whopping 480Mb per second. That’s ok if the only thing you want to transfer is sync data to your iPhone or iPad. For hard drives, this speed is unbearably slow.
Apple’s own stupidity
We don’t want ports with no peripheral support. We want ports that are actually supported. Simply because Apple has adopted the Thunderbolt technology doesn’t mean that it will in any way become a standard. In fact, Apple’s bleeding edge adoption of the Thunderbolt port is about as risky as the Firewire (1394) port was way back when. And, where is Firewire now? Dead.
I just don’t get why you would stick old technology on a brand new notebook when new technology already exists? There are many USB 3 adapters and peripherals that could easily get users faster speeds until (or if) Thunderbolt actually takes off.
Apple needs to wake up and realize we want to connect fast drives to external ports. So, at least give us ports where we can do this. Sure, LaCie and other manufacturers will likely start making Thunderbolt compatible drive enclosures, but they probably won’t hit stores for months or possibly even as late as 2012. Until then, we have to live with USB 2.0 ports that suck rocks for speed.
Thanks Apple.
Random Thoughts - Randocity! 
leave a comment