The call to schedule delivery never came last night, so I called Lowe's today and asked when. The response: how about now? I emptied the old, unplugged it, and rolled it toward the front door, finishing just as the delivery truck arrived.
The new 'fridge is huge; well, that's compared to the tiny apartment sized 'fridge I've been using for 10 years. It's black, which makes it look even bigger, but fits nicely into the space -- just tall enough that I can't see the dust collect on top. Because the delivery team could not hook up the ice-maker to the old line, I called my plumber, who said, "We're in the area and will come hook it up for you." While they were here, they also installed the two new outdoor lights by my front door, flourescent lights that will be brighter than the old fixtures and come on automatically at dusk (and go off with the rising sun). This is another item off the must-do-soon list.
Wahoo! And I have not just an ice-maker, but my choice of cubes or crushed, as well as cold water and a light built-in. All of the glass shelves are adjustable, so I've done that as I returned items to storage, throwing out those beyond salvation.
And, lest you think that this is no big deal: UPS called me to update me on the returned package. It is on its way back to the local area and they will call me when it arrives on-site so I can either schedule delivery or come pick it up. I guess that all is forgiven, but no business should ever have to bend this far over if they simply do the job correctly in the first place. Go Big Brown!
Life is good in the neighborhood this fine day.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
What Are You Doing, People?
Driving home from work Monday, I was trapped behind a van driven by a woman who was weaving across both lanes (one in each direction, even worse than two going the same direction), as well as running her tires off the roadside, the most common method of flipping a vehicle in the desert. There was no way to go around the van as there was no way to determine where it would be at any given moment on the pavement.
At an admittedly deadly intersection, she did come to a rolling stop, with oncoming traffic approaching in both directions, before she gunned it to avoid the collision and continued on her way. As she completed that totally unsafe turn toward the highway a mile up the hill, I saw her holding her cellphone to her ear! Worse yet, when we finally both made it to the highway and I was able to pass her safely, I saw her infant strapped into the car seat behind the driver. What was she thinking as she endangered herself, her child, and anyone else on that roadway? Was the call/text more important than the lives she put in jeopardy?
CA already passed a law that prohibits using a hand-held cellphone while driving, but you'd never know it on the roads I drive. On the last trip to LaJolla, I'd say at least half the drivers sharing pavement with me were busy talking on their phones or texting. On my weekly commutes to/from JT, the percentage is higher than half, and more often than not, combined with unsafe driving practices. Several weeks ago, a student left class to drive home and was killed in a head-on collision, allegedly her cell phone was still on and a text message half-completed. There is an endless string of examples of death, disfigurement, and maiming of victims in accidents caused by either cellphone use or texting, but still it's a matter of routine for most people who are also behind the wheel to be talking on their phones and/or texting while driving.
Yesterday, I was cut off by a vehicle that suddenly was right in front of me, coming diagonally into my lane. As I slammed on the brakes, she waved at me, her cell phone in her hand. Obviously, this is a person who fails multi-tasking, especially when she's behind the wheel! I wonder how many of the other sudden lane changes, failure to stop at a traffic light, and head-on collisions are "waved away" by a driver who is otherwise occupied?
SoCal is also the home to a major commuter train wreck attributed to an engineer who missed a stop signal because he was texting. That action didn't just destroy a train, but it destroyed many lives needlessly. What text could possibly be worth the price of dozens of victims' lives? The employer should not have to tell an engineer to pay attention to what he's doing as that's implied by both the job title and the job responsibilities, but that's the recourse left to the train company. If it's not spelled out, that long list of don'ts, the employee may not be liable for the deaths and damage caused by their actions while on the job.
We don't need more legislation: we need enforcement. Just as we all are urged to report drunk drivers who are weaving all over the roadway, we need to report cellphone users who are doing exactly the same thing! The difference between a drunk driver and a texter is that the texter is wide awake and aware of what s/he is doing, while the drunk usually passes out behind the wheel and survives to drive another day.
At an admittedly deadly intersection, she did come to a rolling stop, with oncoming traffic approaching in both directions, before she gunned it to avoid the collision and continued on her way. As she completed that totally unsafe turn toward the highway a mile up the hill, I saw her holding her cellphone to her ear! Worse yet, when we finally both made it to the highway and I was able to pass her safely, I saw her infant strapped into the car seat behind the driver. What was she thinking as she endangered herself, her child, and anyone else on that roadway? Was the call/text more important than the lives she put in jeopardy?
CA already passed a law that prohibits using a hand-held cellphone while driving, but you'd never know it on the roads I drive. On the last trip to LaJolla, I'd say at least half the drivers sharing pavement with me were busy talking on their phones or texting. On my weekly commutes to/from JT, the percentage is higher than half, and more often than not, combined with unsafe driving practices. Several weeks ago, a student left class to drive home and was killed in a head-on collision, allegedly her cell phone was still on and a text message half-completed. There is an endless string of examples of death, disfigurement, and maiming of victims in accidents caused by either cellphone use or texting, but still it's a matter of routine for most people who are also behind the wheel to be talking on their phones and/or texting while driving.
Yesterday, I was cut off by a vehicle that suddenly was right in front of me, coming diagonally into my lane. As I slammed on the brakes, she waved at me, her cell phone in her hand. Obviously, this is a person who fails multi-tasking, especially when she's behind the wheel! I wonder how many of the other sudden lane changes, failure to stop at a traffic light, and head-on collisions are "waved away" by a driver who is otherwise occupied?
SoCal is also the home to a major commuter train wreck attributed to an engineer who missed a stop signal because he was texting. That action didn't just destroy a train, but it destroyed many lives needlessly. What text could possibly be worth the price of dozens of victims' lives? The employer should not have to tell an engineer to pay attention to what he's doing as that's implied by both the job title and the job responsibilities, but that's the recourse left to the train company. If it's not spelled out, that long list of don'ts, the employee may not be liable for the deaths and damage caused by their actions while on the job.
We don't need more legislation: we need enforcement. Just as we all are urged to report drunk drivers who are weaving all over the roadway, we need to report cellphone users who are doing exactly the same thing! The difference between a drunk driver and a texter is that the texter is wide awake and aware of what s/he is doing, while the drunk usually passes out behind the wheel and survives to drive another day.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Brown Becomes Psychic Delivery Service
My former husband sent me a package: cool, huh? It would be if I could get the package! I didn't see the first delivery notice posted on my front screen door until too late: the second delivery had already occurred. I signed both of the package slips as I knew I would not be home for the third delivery, but no package: just a third (and final) notification.
I signed on to the website, but UPS must be a branch of the Masons: no phone number, no street address, no way to figure out how to go pick up the package. I was assured at both the website and on the back of the package delivery notification that I had 5 business days to retrieve it before it would be returned to the sender, so I decided that after returning home Monday, I'd go pick up the package, which required first driving to the local UPS store to find out either an address or a phone number. Because I was already in the car, I drove to the address, tucked next to the runway at PS Airport, not all that easy to find. Nope, they are closed when I arrive, so Business Day One has come and gone with no package, but not for a lack of trying.
Business Day Two, today, Tuesday, I drove to UPS to pick up the package, but they were closed: don't open until 9 am, and I arrived at 8:30 am. No problem as I was on my way to Lowe's to buy a new 'fridge (free delivery, installation, and removal of the old box were my motivation to pick Lowe's because my 'fridge is now freezing everything in the cold box and freezer burning everything in the freezer). I bought a black 'fridge (with an ice maker), which will sort of match the black front on the stove, but not the beige dishwasher or the white beverage 'fridge. Oh, well. Paid for, delivery arranged, my coffee purchase done at Wal-Mart, I drove back to UPS.
Sorry: you weren't home for the delivery service, so the package has been returned!
"There must be a mistake," I gently chided the counter person. "I have 5 business days to pick up the package before it's returned. This is only Day Two of the Five."
Sorry: our policy has changed and we attempt delivery three times -- then return the package.
"What? That's not what it says on the back of these three delivery notifications, nor on the website. It clearly says that I have five days to pick up the package."
Sorry: that's no longer our policy. You can call customer service and see if the sender will resend it, but you'll probably have to pay again for shipping.
"No, that is not going to happen. I'm not psychic, so how would I know that you've changed your policy -- but not your notification of delivery slips nor your website. It's on you: deliver my package."
Sorry: we can't do that. However, you are welcome to talk to our manager and explain your problem. (He provides me with directions, I find the office, and I ask to speak to said manager.)
We go through the whole thing again, with her assuring me that it's their "new policy," and me questioning how I would know that if both the delivery slips and the website assure me I have five days to pick up the package before it's returned. She's very sorry for the confusion, but it's their new policy, especially because this package delivery did not require a signature.
Oh, now we went there: not two minutes before, she told me that if a package delivery requires a signature, you have five days to pick it up, but since this package didn't require a signature... . I interrupted her again to point out that it did require a signature, so I signed two of the delivery notification slips and left them affixed to my front door, but the UPS driver simply attached a final notification to those two and did not leave the package.
It took about 10 minutes for her to get it: the only place the new policy is articulated is, apparently, internally, so the delivery notification slips are out-of-date, as well as the website. She agreed that I was relying on the published policy, not the psychic policy, and began tracking down the package so it can be returned to PS and delivered to me. Believe me, she saved the company from a scathing letter of complaint by seeing this issue from a customer's perspective, rather than continuing to articulate the company patter!
Now, I just have to figure out WHEN the delivery van is going to stop by my house so I am home at that exact moment to sign for and receive the package as no one tells you when it will be delivered until the truck has already arrived! Yes, I understand: great international company with an incredible record for delivering packages quickly, efficiently, and reasonably priced -- but not MY package.
I signed on to the website, but UPS must be a branch of the Masons: no phone number, no street address, no way to figure out how to go pick up the package. I was assured at both the website and on the back of the package delivery notification that I had 5 business days to retrieve it before it would be returned to the sender, so I decided that after returning home Monday, I'd go pick up the package, which required first driving to the local UPS store to find out either an address or a phone number. Because I was already in the car, I drove to the address, tucked next to the runway at PS Airport, not all that easy to find. Nope, they are closed when I arrive, so Business Day One has come and gone with no package, but not for a lack of trying.
Business Day Two, today, Tuesday, I drove to UPS to pick up the package, but they were closed: don't open until 9 am, and I arrived at 8:30 am. No problem as I was on my way to Lowe's to buy a new 'fridge (free delivery, installation, and removal of the old box were my motivation to pick Lowe's because my 'fridge is now freezing everything in the cold box and freezer burning everything in the freezer). I bought a black 'fridge (with an ice maker), which will sort of match the black front on the stove, but not the beige dishwasher or the white beverage 'fridge. Oh, well. Paid for, delivery arranged, my coffee purchase done at Wal-Mart, I drove back to UPS.
Sorry: you weren't home for the delivery service, so the package has been returned!
"There must be a mistake," I gently chided the counter person. "I have 5 business days to pick up the package before it's returned. This is only Day Two of the Five."
Sorry: our policy has changed and we attempt delivery three times -- then return the package.
"What? That's not what it says on the back of these three delivery notifications, nor on the website. It clearly says that I have five days to pick up the package."
Sorry: that's no longer our policy. You can call customer service and see if the sender will resend it, but you'll probably have to pay again for shipping.
"No, that is not going to happen. I'm not psychic, so how would I know that you've changed your policy -- but not your notification of delivery slips nor your website. It's on you: deliver my package."
Sorry: we can't do that. However, you are welcome to talk to our manager and explain your problem. (He provides me with directions, I find the office, and I ask to speak to said manager.)
We go through the whole thing again, with her assuring me that it's their "new policy," and me questioning how I would know that if both the delivery slips and the website assure me I have five days to pick up the package before it's returned. She's very sorry for the confusion, but it's their new policy, especially because this package delivery did not require a signature.
Oh, now we went there: not two minutes before, she told me that if a package delivery requires a signature, you have five days to pick it up, but since this package didn't require a signature... . I interrupted her again to point out that it did require a signature, so I signed two of the delivery notification slips and left them affixed to my front door, but the UPS driver simply attached a final notification to those two and did not leave the package.
It took about 10 minutes for her to get it: the only place the new policy is articulated is, apparently, internally, so the delivery notification slips are out-of-date, as well as the website. She agreed that I was relying on the published policy, not the psychic policy, and began tracking down the package so it can be returned to PS and delivered to me. Believe me, she saved the company from a scathing letter of complaint by seeing this issue from a customer's perspective, rather than continuing to articulate the company patter!
Now, I just have to figure out WHEN the delivery van is going to stop by my house so I am home at that exact moment to sign for and receive the package as no one tells you when it will be delivered until the truck has already arrived! Yes, I understand: great international company with an incredible record for delivering packages quickly, efficiently, and reasonably priced -- but not MY package.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Design Star Disappointment
One of my favorite programs is on HGTV: Design Star. Over the last couple of years, contestants have decorated homes and backyard living spaces in a competition to earn their own show on the HGTV network. There are always obvious not-going-to-win candidates, as well as those who are really good at design and execution. This season, however, was the worst one to date because the attitude of one of the contestants was disturbing.
Usually, the competition is intense, but fair, with what we often call a "friendly" feel to it. Yes, each person wants to win, but NOT at the expense of another contestant: the design wins or loses, not the designer. This year, one of the contestants did as little as possible to work with the other designers, stepping in only at the last moment to add "his" touch to the design, usually something that I found offensive, such as the shocking pink birds he affixed to the fireplace against the decision of the rest of the team who told him NO, NO, NO. This, however, the only part of the project that Antonio actually did, caught the judges' eyes and singled him out for daring to be different. He also set the others up to fail by deception, including outright lying about a sum of money allocated for a group project, which got the project leader cut from the competition. His work was often shabby, tossed together, and everything he said/did was all about him, not about design.
Needless to say, I was totally aghast when Antonio was named the ultimate winner this season! The distinguished panel of judges applauded him for the over-the-top touches he added to what the design teams did, somehow ignoring his failure to engage in the process. Even when they dissed his design as not well executed, he went to the next level. Kathy Griffith's home office comes to mind, which was judged as a great use of the space, but dissed for the lack of balance in the size/placement of elements of the design. He presented himself far better than the quality of his work justified, and the judges bought it, praised it, and awarded him the TV show.
Last night, as I was flipping channels after watching some football, there it was: The Antonio Project, HBTV's new design star's showcase. I watched to see if I got it wrong during the competition, but no, my assessment was spot-on. It was all about Antonio not doing the job, then scurrying about to find pieces that would look like he did a good job. Sort of a "flip this house" approach: add a granite countertop and stainless steel appliances and no one realizes that the kitchen cabinets are hung wrong, the electrical doesn't work, and the sub-flooring is rotten.
Believe it or not, he actually did not make a purchase at a retail outlet as he thought the saleswoman was hot ("potential date material" was his assessment) and he wanted to come back a second time to hit on her! That tells more about Antonio than his design ever could: he was in it to win it for what it could do for himself, not for the design. Antonio creates the perception, rather than the reality, and the judges bought into the deception, but it's going to come back and bite Antonio in the ass when he fails to do the job and loses the contract.
The best design star is David Bromstad, who is into his third season! He comes across not just as a nice person, but a member of the design team, not the "star" of it. He works as hard as everyone on his team and listens to comments/suggestions from the team about making the design work. He always adds his own unique touch, usually a design element that no one else would think to do, punctuated by an original work of art that simply finishes the design the way nothing else would.
This week, David had two shows. The first was a bedroom that went from ordinary to extraordinary by the use of lime green in a headboard that began at the top of the mattress and extended across the ceiling above the bed. Talk about a WOW factor. The second was a huge space that he converted into a multipurpose room: an office space connected to a leisure space. This time, red was the pop of color, featured in a unique set of curtains on one wall: wooden panels that slide together to form a graphic during the day and slide open to cover the windows for privacy at night. His program, Color Splash, not just sets the tone for what the design concept is, but reflects that it's about the design, not about the designer.
Hence, naming this season's winner's program The Antonio Project says it all: it's all about the designer and there isn't much there.
Usually, the competition is intense, but fair, with what we often call a "friendly" feel to it. Yes, each person wants to win, but NOT at the expense of another contestant: the design wins or loses, not the designer. This year, one of the contestants did as little as possible to work with the other designers, stepping in only at the last moment to add "his" touch to the design, usually something that I found offensive, such as the shocking pink birds he affixed to the fireplace against the decision of the rest of the team who told him NO, NO, NO. This, however, the only part of the project that Antonio actually did, caught the judges' eyes and singled him out for daring to be different. He also set the others up to fail by deception, including outright lying about a sum of money allocated for a group project, which got the project leader cut from the competition. His work was often shabby, tossed together, and everything he said/did was all about him, not about design.
Needless to say, I was totally aghast when Antonio was named the ultimate winner this season! The distinguished panel of judges applauded him for the over-the-top touches he added to what the design teams did, somehow ignoring his failure to engage in the process. Even when they dissed his design as not well executed, he went to the next level. Kathy Griffith's home office comes to mind, which was judged as a great use of the space, but dissed for the lack of balance in the size/placement of elements of the design. He presented himself far better than the quality of his work justified, and the judges bought it, praised it, and awarded him the TV show.
Last night, as I was flipping channels after watching some football, there it was: The Antonio Project, HBTV's new design star's showcase. I watched to see if I got it wrong during the competition, but no, my assessment was spot-on. It was all about Antonio not doing the job, then scurrying about to find pieces that would look like he did a good job. Sort of a "flip this house" approach: add a granite countertop and stainless steel appliances and no one realizes that the kitchen cabinets are hung wrong, the electrical doesn't work, and the sub-flooring is rotten.
Believe it or not, he actually did not make a purchase at a retail outlet as he thought the saleswoman was hot ("potential date material" was his assessment) and he wanted to come back a second time to hit on her! That tells more about Antonio than his design ever could: he was in it to win it for what it could do for himself, not for the design. Antonio creates the perception, rather than the reality, and the judges bought into the deception, but it's going to come back and bite Antonio in the ass when he fails to do the job and loses the contract.
The best design star is David Bromstad, who is into his third season! He comes across not just as a nice person, but a member of the design team, not the "star" of it. He works as hard as everyone on his team and listens to comments/suggestions from the team about making the design work. He always adds his own unique touch, usually a design element that no one else would think to do, punctuated by an original work of art that simply finishes the design the way nothing else would.
This week, David had two shows. The first was a bedroom that went from ordinary to extraordinary by the use of lime green in a headboard that began at the top of the mattress and extended across the ceiling above the bed. Talk about a WOW factor. The second was a huge space that he converted into a multipurpose room: an office space connected to a leisure space. This time, red was the pop of color, featured in a unique set of curtains on one wall: wooden panels that slide together to form a graphic during the day and slide open to cover the windows for privacy at night. His program, Color Splash, not just sets the tone for what the design concept is, but reflects that it's about the design, not about the designer.
Hence, naming this season's winner's program The Antonio Project says it all: it's all about the designer and there isn't much there.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Wish I Hadn't Said That ...
Upon awakening this morning and facing the mirror for the first time, I was startled to see that my right eye is blood red. Yep, went to the Mayo medical site and it's nothing ... usually. Since I have no idea what caused it, I'm going to go with the "nothing" diagnosis unless/until I have reason to think otherwise.
Then I wandered out to pick up mail and buy groceries, early enough in the morning that fewer drivers are on the road/shoppers in the store, an environment that I prefer. Up and down the aisles I pushed my cart, picking up items here and there, and then moved into the closest check-out lane, where I was blinded by the neon greenish yellow shirts worn by the cashier and 2 helpers standing nearby. Not only did the color hurt my eyes, but it made the wearers of the t-shirts look convincingly sick!
When the totally gay cashier effusively greeted me, darlin', he asked how I was doin' this mornin', so I told him that I was fine until I came face-to-face with those hideous shirts. Gasp! Yes, often gay men actually gasp, and this one is a drama queen most of the time, so I set him off with my somewhat harsh fashion critique.
He took the time to explain to me that they are wearing the shirts NOT as a fashion statement, because God only knows there is NO fashion in a t-shirt, but because the color of the shirt matches the color of the price posters throughout the store that draw attention to the new, lower prices. He smiled smugly upon completion of his unnecessary explanation as if it would completely turn around my reaction to the shirts.
It didn't. I smiled in return and said, "Well, I'm glad YOU are wearing it and not me," the wrong reaction on so many levels.
He thanked me for sharing my opinion and assured me that "We value our customer's opinions," but as I was pushing my purchase toward the exit, he left his cash register and headed posthaste toward the floor manager, waving his hand at her to catch her attention.
You know what? It's a hideous color and it does not flatter anyone who wears it, but I understand the employees have no choice. After all, someone else decided that the employees should match the pricing posters, not this poor cashier. I could have kept my mouth shut, but it just tumbled out, and once you say it, there's no taking it back.
I drove home, put away the groceries, and stayed home the rest of the day, rather than risk offending anyone else with my public fashion critiques.
Then I wandered out to pick up mail and buy groceries, early enough in the morning that fewer drivers are on the road/shoppers in the store, an environment that I prefer. Up and down the aisles I pushed my cart, picking up items here and there, and then moved into the closest check-out lane, where I was blinded by the neon greenish yellow shirts worn by the cashier and 2 helpers standing nearby. Not only did the color hurt my eyes, but it made the wearers of the t-shirts look convincingly sick!
When the totally gay cashier effusively greeted me, darlin', he asked how I was doin' this mornin', so I told him that I was fine until I came face-to-face with those hideous shirts. Gasp! Yes, often gay men actually gasp, and this one is a drama queen most of the time, so I set him off with my somewhat harsh fashion critique.
He took the time to explain to me that they are wearing the shirts NOT as a fashion statement, because God only knows there is NO fashion in a t-shirt, but because the color of the shirt matches the color of the price posters throughout the store that draw attention to the new, lower prices. He smiled smugly upon completion of his unnecessary explanation as if it would completely turn around my reaction to the shirts.
It didn't. I smiled in return and said, "Well, I'm glad YOU are wearing it and not me," the wrong reaction on so many levels.
He thanked me for sharing my opinion and assured me that "We value our customer's opinions," but as I was pushing my purchase toward the exit, he left his cash register and headed posthaste toward the floor manager, waving his hand at her to catch her attention.
You know what? It's a hideous color and it does not flatter anyone who wears it, but I understand the employees have no choice. After all, someone else decided that the employees should match the pricing posters, not this poor cashier. I could have kept my mouth shut, but it just tumbled out, and once you say it, there's no taking it back.
I drove home, put away the groceries, and stayed home the rest of the day, rather than risk offending anyone else with my public fashion critiques.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
UPS: Non- Delivery Service
There is a package for me at UPS that requires confirmation of delivery. Twice the UPS employee has stopped by to deliver the package, but I have been gone. Tomorrow will be my third strike because I have no choice about what time the delivery will be made: between 10 am and 2 pm. Before 10 am works for me or after 3 pm tomorrow, but between 10 and 2, I have a luncheon date up the hill.
I did go online to view my options, which I foolishly thought might include a different delivery window. Well, if I want to make changes, it will cost me $4 to do so, and I'm not going to pay to have a package delivered because delivery has already been paid for! Had UPS asked me when is a good time to deliver the package and then I failed to be home -- I'd pay. But they don't ask, they just stop by, and lots of people work away from home, which is where I was the first two times they tried to deliver the package.
I've signed the notification slips and left them on the door, but I guess I have to sign in person, and that's not going to happen. What's next? I don't know, but I think it includes me not receiving the package.
I did go online to view my options, which I foolishly thought might include a different delivery window. Well, if I want to make changes, it will cost me $4 to do so, and I'm not going to pay to have a package delivered because delivery has already been paid for! Had UPS asked me when is a good time to deliver the package and then I failed to be home -- I'd pay. But they don't ask, they just stop by, and lots of people work away from home, which is where I was the first two times they tried to deliver the package.
I've signed the notification slips and left them on the door, but I guess I have to sign in person, and that's not going to happen. What's next? I don't know, but I think it includes me not receiving the package.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
D:WTF?
When the TV reality show Dancing with the Stars began, I enjoyed it. Well-known entertainers learned ballroom dancing, taught by professionals, and then performed on TV. Viewers voted, along with a panel of sympathetic judges who offered suggestions that could improve the authenticity of the performance, but accepted that these were amateurs just having fun. Some of the amateur dancers turned out to do quite well, while others just were there because everyone else said no -- except their agent.
This week, accompanied by far too much hoopla, the new season begins, with 16 celebrity contestants, none of whom wears the label "ordinary," paired with 16 professional dancers who are in their own competition: winning does not simply affirm one's professional ability, but it assures a very public, very lucrative entertainment career. The professionals mouth the words -- it's about the celebrity, not about me -- but they know it's all about with whom they are paired and how much the professional can dance around the incompetence of the celebrity partner.
I watched the first two parts, but I think I'm done with DWTS this season as the focus has morphed again into oneupmanship between the judges, the professional dancers, and the celebrities. Anyone who ties on the shoes and takes to the floor deserves if not outright courtesy, at least kindness. The past two nights have been filled with nasty, nasty comments about the person, as well as the performance. It has been building for a couple of seasons to this point, where the judges become the personality of the TV series, but it ruins the intent, as well as the outcome. Len, the head judge, finds nothing to praise, but lots to persecute; Carrie Ann's comments always have star-struck overtones; and the little gay guy is always pursing his lips and yelling, "hot, hot, hot!" The judges have defined their roles and apply them to the contestants, which definitely was not the initial concept for the show when it began years ago as a summer replacement.
Enlarging the cast has done nothing to improve the quality of the performances; as a matter of fact, several of the stars are obviously there because they have good agents, not because the talent wants this public humiliation: Ashley, Macy, and Chuck come immediately to mind. Others are athletes facing the end of a very short careerspan and looking for enough publicity to find them another job in a tight job market. Some are faded stars of yesterday, brought on-board to appeal to the senior demographic, providing those with failing memories and no contact with today's entertainment giants a chance to watch the show and identify with someone, anyone. After all, I may not know Ashley Hamilton, but his father is sitting in the audience, along with Ozzie Osbourne, Kelly's dad, and I do recognize those names.
The Stars are giving it their best and deserve acceptance and approval for doing so; however, the judges have hammered them -- personally and professionally. You do NOT tell the son of a major movie star from back in the day that his dancing is a performance only his father could love! You do NOT assume that an older print model can dance professionally after 4 short weeks of training! You do NOT grant a pass for the worst performance of the event on the excuse that one of the singers is on tour! But you DO allow the performers a chance to leave the show gracefully, to accept that no matter how hard they try, this performance venue is not their best showcase. There is no point to hammering the stars or in blaming the professional dancer for choreographing a routine tailored to the amateur, a performance routine that greatly displeased Len, who literally said, "shame on you" for adapting a professional routine to meet the needs of the celebrity dancer!
This is NOT what I want to see when I watch Dancing with the Stars! I want to see familiar faces doing something unfamiliar, something that each contestant has to learn to earn the trophy at the end. I want to see the judges accept the performances for what they are, not for what they should/could/would be if the amateurs were professionals. I want to enjoy that hour of dancing, not cringe in embarrassment from the unkind, snarky comments made by judges whose careers are far too long in the past to do the job in the present.
Thus, I no longer will engage in DWTS because, for me, it's become D:WTF?
This week, accompanied by far too much hoopla, the new season begins, with 16 celebrity contestants, none of whom wears the label "ordinary," paired with 16 professional dancers who are in their own competition: winning does not simply affirm one's professional ability, but it assures a very public, very lucrative entertainment career. The professionals mouth the words -- it's about the celebrity, not about me -- but they know it's all about with whom they are paired and how much the professional can dance around the incompetence of the celebrity partner.
I watched the first two parts, but I think I'm done with DWTS this season as the focus has morphed again into oneupmanship between the judges, the professional dancers, and the celebrities. Anyone who ties on the shoes and takes to the floor deserves if not outright courtesy, at least kindness. The past two nights have been filled with nasty, nasty comments about the person, as well as the performance. It has been building for a couple of seasons to this point, where the judges become the personality of the TV series, but it ruins the intent, as well as the outcome. Len, the head judge, finds nothing to praise, but lots to persecute; Carrie Ann's comments always have star-struck overtones; and the little gay guy is always pursing his lips and yelling, "hot, hot, hot!" The judges have defined their roles and apply them to the contestants, which definitely was not the initial concept for the show when it began years ago as a summer replacement.
Enlarging the cast has done nothing to improve the quality of the performances; as a matter of fact, several of the stars are obviously there because they have good agents, not because the talent wants this public humiliation: Ashley, Macy, and Chuck come immediately to mind. Others are athletes facing the end of a very short careerspan and looking for enough publicity to find them another job in a tight job market. Some are faded stars of yesterday, brought on-board to appeal to the senior demographic, providing those with failing memories and no contact with today's entertainment giants a chance to watch the show and identify with someone, anyone. After all, I may not know Ashley Hamilton, but his father is sitting in the audience, along with Ozzie Osbourne, Kelly's dad, and I do recognize those names.
The Stars are giving it their best and deserve acceptance and approval for doing so; however, the judges have hammered them -- personally and professionally. You do NOT tell the son of a major movie star from back in the day that his dancing is a performance only his father could love! You do NOT assume that an older print model can dance professionally after 4 short weeks of training! You do NOT grant a pass for the worst performance of the event on the excuse that one of the singers is on tour! But you DO allow the performers a chance to leave the show gracefully, to accept that no matter how hard they try, this performance venue is not their best showcase. There is no point to hammering the stars or in blaming the professional dancer for choreographing a routine tailored to the amateur, a performance routine that greatly displeased Len, who literally said, "shame on you" for adapting a professional routine to meet the needs of the celebrity dancer!
This is NOT what I want to see when I watch Dancing with the Stars! I want to see familiar faces doing something unfamiliar, something that each contestant has to learn to earn the trophy at the end. I want to see the judges accept the performances for what they are, not for what they should/could/would be if the amateurs were professionals. I want to enjoy that hour of dancing, not cringe in embarrassment from the unkind, snarky comments made by judges whose careers are far too long in the past to do the job in the present.
Thus, I no longer will engage in DWTS because, for me, it's become D:WTF?
Friday, September 18, 2009
What Kin I Git Fer Ya, Hun? That Would Be Customer Service
I began the Friday b’fast meetings by inviting one colleague to join me at a well-known local restaurant about a mile from campus. I’d enjoyed the small group of good friends with whom I had weekly b’fast where I used to live and I missed that camaraderie, so decided about 8 years ago that I would have one New Year’s Eve resolution: to start another b’fast group. It is one weekly activity I not just enjoy, but anticipate. However, for about the past 6 months or so, I’ve been less than well-satisfied with the meals and/or the service.
Chain restaurants are keeping up with the hard times, offering “2 for $20,” dollar menus, kids eat free, and running specials, such as the Denny’s once-a-month someone eats for free. However, our local eatery is not offering specials; instead, the marketing approach includes downgrading both the quality and the quantity of the food while literally doubling some of the prices. I first mentioned this to the group last spring, when I noticed that I was paying 1/3 again more for the same meal than I had been, and it was not a gradual increase. My $7.95 chicken fried steak with scrambled eggs and toast b'fast was suddenly costing me a whopping $14 and change! At the same time, the preparation of the meal declined as drastically as the price had inclined, with me often refusing to eat a meal that arrived with cold, slimy eggs, burnt toast, and limp bacon. Yeah, I sent it back a couple of times, but that gets old too, so I tried other b’fast items to see if there was something else I could order, eat, and afford.
One morning, my b’fast buddy ordered what is in essence a McDonald’s b’fast sandwich, the one with sausage, egg, and cheese on a toasted English muffin. The first time I ordered it, it was delicious, but after that initial offering, I never had another one that tasted as good. The price went from $4.99, which is quite pricey, to $6.99, and then to $7.50 – while the muffins went from fat and perfectly toasted to thin and burnt, and the eggs went from plump and moist circles to a lacy-edged splat that hung over the edges of the burnt muffin. The sausage, which had been a nice, thick, moist patty was suddenly a cardboard-thin, dried out, fried piece of mystery meat! All in all, not worth paying the price – nor worth eating.
We did have the discussion one morning, asking the server if, perhaps, there was a new cook. Nope, same cook, so that didn’t seem to explain the changes. Yes, business has been off, but it’s the economy. I wanted to say no, it’s the food combined with the price increases, but I didn’t. Today, our server didn’t come to pick up our payment, so after waiting a while we walked up to the register to pay. When she saw us standing there (she was reading the morning paper), she said that we finally “caught on” that she doesn’t have to perform that service.
Okay, there’s the key word: service. As in, the customer comes in to order a product from you and you treat the customer well, service the customer, so s/he will enjoy today’s product (meal) and want to return. If I wanted to fill my own coffee cup; if I wanted cold, slimy eggs and limp bacon; if I wanted a fried egg curling and oozing over the edges of the burnt muffin – I’d stay home and cook it myself. I come to the diner once a week for a treat, for a little bit of service provided to me in exchange for which I pay money, as well as a TIP, to ensure proper, polite service.
A restaurant that used to fill to capacity during the 60 minutes our group was there is now empty. We no longer worry about hurrying to leave as no one is waiting for a table. I’m sure the staff blames the situation on the economy, but it’s not: it’s the lack of good food combined with an unreasonable pricing structure that is not competitive within the community. You try to make up for your failure to compete by scrimping on the food and raising the prices, but you end up losing more than you would if you had kept what you had and hustled to get more patrons in the door.
Don’t blame the economy for bad business practices: blame bad business practies! Meanwhile, we're looking for another spot for our Friday 6 am b'fast club.
Chain restaurants are keeping up with the hard times, offering “2 for $20,” dollar menus, kids eat free, and running specials, such as the Denny’s once-a-month someone eats for free. However, our local eatery is not offering specials; instead, the marketing approach includes downgrading both the quality and the quantity of the food while literally doubling some of the prices. I first mentioned this to the group last spring, when I noticed that I was paying 1/3 again more for the same meal than I had been, and it was not a gradual increase. My $7.95 chicken fried steak with scrambled eggs and toast b'fast was suddenly costing me a whopping $14 and change! At the same time, the preparation of the meal declined as drastically as the price had inclined, with me often refusing to eat a meal that arrived with cold, slimy eggs, burnt toast, and limp bacon. Yeah, I sent it back a couple of times, but that gets old too, so I tried other b’fast items to see if there was something else I could order, eat, and afford.
One morning, my b’fast buddy ordered what is in essence a McDonald’s b’fast sandwich, the one with sausage, egg, and cheese on a toasted English muffin. The first time I ordered it, it was delicious, but after that initial offering, I never had another one that tasted as good. The price went from $4.99, which is quite pricey, to $6.99, and then to $7.50 – while the muffins went from fat and perfectly toasted to thin and burnt, and the eggs went from plump and moist circles to a lacy-edged splat that hung over the edges of the burnt muffin. The sausage, which had been a nice, thick, moist patty was suddenly a cardboard-thin, dried out, fried piece of mystery meat! All in all, not worth paying the price – nor worth eating.
We did have the discussion one morning, asking the server if, perhaps, there was a new cook. Nope, same cook, so that didn’t seem to explain the changes. Yes, business has been off, but it’s the economy. I wanted to say no, it’s the food combined with the price increases, but I didn’t. Today, our server didn’t come to pick up our payment, so after waiting a while we walked up to the register to pay. When she saw us standing there (she was reading the morning paper), she said that we finally “caught on” that she doesn’t have to perform that service.
Okay, there’s the key word: service. As in, the customer comes in to order a product from you and you treat the customer well, service the customer, so s/he will enjoy today’s product (meal) and want to return. If I wanted to fill my own coffee cup; if I wanted cold, slimy eggs and limp bacon; if I wanted a fried egg curling and oozing over the edges of the burnt muffin – I’d stay home and cook it myself. I come to the diner once a week for a treat, for a little bit of service provided to me in exchange for which I pay money, as well as a TIP, to ensure proper, polite service.
A restaurant that used to fill to capacity during the 60 minutes our group was there is now empty. We no longer worry about hurrying to leave as no one is waiting for a table. I’m sure the staff blames the situation on the economy, but it’s not: it’s the lack of good food combined with an unreasonable pricing structure that is not competitive within the community. You try to make up for your failure to compete by scrimping on the food and raising the prices, but you end up losing more than you would if you had kept what you had and hustled to get more patrons in the door.
Don’t blame the economy for bad business practices: blame bad business practies! Meanwhile, we're looking for another spot for our Friday 6 am b'fast club.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Out of the Microwave and Into the Deep Fryer
Why does it take 1-1/2 hours to buy a few replacement plants and a set of outdoor fairy lights? I went to K-Mart; I went to Wal-Mart; I went to Lowe's; I went to Home Depot; and then I went to the family-owned hardware store that's way out of my way at the far end of Palm Springs -- and they had the lights! On sale! 40% off -- so I bought 4 packages of them. But, what should have been a quick in 'n out was a round trip of 40 miles!
Good news: the plants are in and watered and the fairy lights changed out. Because the family-owned hardware store is changing its focus, it's having one of those we're selling everything, including the kitchen sink, really cheap, so I stood in line with an impressive array of very buff men who obviously work in construction or contracting. Their bulging biceps were bursting with all kinds of hardware items at 40% off, which should beef up their bottom line too.
As I was driving back home with 4 sets of fairy lights and 2 new outdoor fixtures for the outlets by the front entry, I was listening to Mark & Brian on The Eagle. They are such a hoot, but are crossing the distasteful line a bit too often these days for me. However, today they had on Chicken Charlie, the guy at the LA County Fair who deep fries everything. M&B invited him to come to the radio station, prepare some of his best food items, and then conduct a taste test.
Well, if you believe M&B, and believe me, they don't lie, deep-fried Oreos are the winner, followed closely by zucchini and a wienie dipped in corn meal batter, and deep-fried avocado. I'll admit these don't sound all that good on the surface, but these radio guys were way beyond enthusiastic. If it weren't such a nightmare to drive to the Pomona Fairplex, find parking, then push my way through the thousands and thousands of people who attend the fair, I'd be tempted to stand in line and try one of ... everything.
Chicken Charlie is going to be on Conan MONDAY, so I may DVR the show and see what these heart attack packets look like as they come out of the deep fryer.
PS: Thanks, Daphne, for the corrections about the LA County Fair! I still may make the drive as I've been thinking about that deep-fried Oreo all day :-)
Good news: the plants are in and watered and the fairy lights changed out. Because the family-owned hardware store is changing its focus, it's having one of those we're selling everything, including the kitchen sink, really cheap, so I stood in line with an impressive array of very buff men who obviously work in construction or contracting. Their bulging biceps were bursting with all kinds of hardware items at 40% off, which should beef up their bottom line too.
As I was driving back home with 4 sets of fairy lights and 2 new outdoor fixtures for the outlets by the front entry, I was listening to Mark & Brian on The Eagle. They are such a hoot, but are crossing the distasteful line a bit too often these days for me. However, today they had on Chicken Charlie, the guy at the LA County Fair who deep fries everything. M&B invited him to come to the radio station, prepare some of his best food items, and then conduct a taste test.
Well, if you believe M&B, and believe me, they don't lie, deep-fried Oreos are the winner, followed closely by zucchini and a wienie dipped in corn meal batter, and deep-fried avocado. I'll admit these don't sound all that good on the surface, but these radio guys were way beyond enthusiastic. If it weren't such a nightmare to drive to the Pomona Fairplex, find parking, then push my way through the thousands and thousands of people who attend the fair, I'd be tempted to stand in line and try one of ... everything.
Chicken Charlie is going to be on Conan MONDAY, so I may DVR the show and see what these heart attack packets look like as they come out of the deep fryer.
PS: Thanks, Daphne, for the corrections about the LA County Fair! I still may make the drive as I've been thinking about that deep-fried Oreo all day :-)
Summer Casualties
The desert enjoyed a few sample fall days, but it's heating up again for the weekend, a typical annual pattern. Just when we all think it's safe to head back outside to enjoy the early evening, the temps jump 20 degrees before admitting defeat and allowing the temperate fall to arrive.
My back garden has been beautiful until August: last night, I was pulling out dead shrubs. Expensive dead shrubs that I planted as part of the landscaping project and which were vibrant touches of color that enticed the butterflies and hummingbirds to sit outside with me. When the temps climbed well into the hundred+teens and the harsh winds blew ferociously across the desert floor, it was as if a torch had been held to the bushes. Surprisingly, two plants survived, but five of them need to be replaced, a task I will do this very day.
The other drawback to an incredibly hot month is the electric bill: $270. Of course, the nice computer-generated note that came with the bill assured me that I can cut costs if I'm careful, but ya know, I already keep the thermostat at 88 and learn to adjust to the seasonal changes naturally, so I'm not going to push it any higher. When it's 117 outside, 88 inside feels fine, but when it's 117 outside, the system is going to run and run and run regardless of what temp I select!
Along with that bill came my first official bill from CalCobra: for significantly more money than I have already paid. I immediately called the contact listed on the bill, a person with whom I have spoken several times, and he explained that yes, I have paid through December, but my rate was raised in July -- and I have not paid enough to cover the insurance. I told him that I have never received a billing notice, so have been paying 3 months at a time to ensure that my coverage is continuous, especially when I was out of state on vacation.
"Hm," he responded. "You have not received a bill?
"Nope," I assured him, "not one single bill."
He provided me with the balance due and assured me that I'll receive a bill for January in December, but I'm not going to hold my breath while I'm waiting for that to happen.
Last on the list for Liza's life is that the engine light came on in the truck on the trip home from class yesterday. I'm sure it means that I need the 25k service, but that's another appointment I have to make, one where I sit and wait for the work to be finished because once I drive to the service center -- I have no way to get either back home or anywhere else!! And I'm sure that my car is also ready for service as both vehicles seem to be like girls and menstrual cycles: they always end up in sync, but no one knows quite why.
I'm prepping for the family get-together this weekend, making both cookies and a chicken casserole. I'm cleaning the house Saturday, not because it's dirty, but because it's a dog hair repository. I don't have guests often enough, but I do enjoy it when people share themselves with me, so I'm looking forward to this gathering.
My back garden has been beautiful until August: last night, I was pulling out dead shrubs. Expensive dead shrubs that I planted as part of the landscaping project and which were vibrant touches of color that enticed the butterflies and hummingbirds to sit outside with me. When the temps climbed well into the hundred+teens and the harsh winds blew ferociously across the desert floor, it was as if a torch had been held to the bushes. Surprisingly, two plants survived, but five of them need to be replaced, a task I will do this very day.
The other drawback to an incredibly hot month is the electric bill: $270. Of course, the nice computer-generated note that came with the bill assured me that I can cut costs if I'm careful, but ya know, I already keep the thermostat at 88 and learn to adjust to the seasonal changes naturally, so I'm not going to push it any higher. When it's 117 outside, 88 inside feels fine, but when it's 117 outside, the system is going to run and run and run regardless of what temp I select!
Along with that bill came my first official bill from CalCobra: for significantly more money than I have already paid. I immediately called the contact listed on the bill, a person with whom I have spoken several times, and he explained that yes, I have paid through December, but my rate was raised in July -- and I have not paid enough to cover the insurance. I told him that I have never received a billing notice, so have been paying 3 months at a time to ensure that my coverage is continuous, especially when I was out of state on vacation.
"Hm," he responded. "You have not received a bill?
"Nope," I assured him, "not one single bill."
He provided me with the balance due and assured me that I'll receive a bill for January in December, but I'm not going to hold my breath while I'm waiting for that to happen.
Last on the list for Liza's life is that the engine light came on in the truck on the trip home from class yesterday. I'm sure it means that I need the 25k service, but that's another appointment I have to make, one where I sit and wait for the work to be finished because once I drive to the service center -- I have no way to get either back home or anywhere else!! And I'm sure that my car is also ready for service as both vehicles seem to be like girls and menstrual cycles: they always end up in sync, but no one knows quite why.
I'm prepping for the family get-together this weekend, making both cookies and a chicken casserole. I'm cleaning the house Saturday, not because it's dirty, but because it's a dog hair repository. I don't have guests often enough, but I do enjoy it when people share themselves with me, so I'm looking forward to this gathering.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Ascribing Racial Intent Instead of Answering the Question
It is disappointing to hear a former President's assessment that those citizens who question President Obama's policies and practices do so based on a racist agenda. The very fact that the former President assumes that the current President's racial background is an issue defines where he's coming from, not where the rest of the citizens are coming from. On the contrary, the fact that the country elected President Obama speaks against this underlying bias, an obvious fact that is being obfuscated by the barrage of racist attributions.
I don’t know anyone who is not biased either in favor of a specific aspect of life or against it. Personally, I have issues with people who speak poorly, as well as those who write incomprehensible diatribes against the system that is, in many cases, supporting them. I have issues with bad drivers, especially when they do not possess a valid driver’s license and the mandated insurance coverage for which I pay a tariff tacked on to my own bill: a fee for uninsured drivers, of which I am not one. I also have issues with those who live above their pay grade, fooling themselves into believing that they are worth whatever life has to offer even when they cannot earn it for themselves and/or pay for it. I particularly abhor that any woman pays hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of dollars for shoes: my bias against that kind of flagrant waste of financial resources sets my blood boiling.
The point is I don’t care the skin color, ethnicity, religious or political affiliation of the people who drive me crazy, the people who bring out the worst in me: it’s their actions and words that elicit the response. When people assure me that it “f-ing don’t matter,” I have to bite my tongue before I tell them that it does matter to those who hold themselves to a higher standard than street language in the workplace. I’ve been the victim of several fender-benders, all of which involved negligent drivers, some of whom were not insured, but none of whom qualifies as a minority. My neighborhood is a vast wasteland of empty homes, abandoned by tenants who spent money they did not have to live high on the hog. It happens that I live in a part of the US that has a predominantly Hispanic / African-American population, many of whom also belong to gangs and/or have prison records. That’s geography, not racism. The women who buy the designer shoes live in the designer communities, so I don’t have to deal directly with their flagrant lifestyle choices!
People have biases, but I’m betting that the majority of people’s biases are not racially biased – well, unless you count the African-Americans who insist that black marry black, or the Hispanics who think that brown has to marry brown, or the Oriental who feels that it dilutes their unique ethnicity to marry outside their race, or the Arabs who feel that it dishonors the family if one marries outside of it, or the Greeks who prefer that Greeks marry one of their own, or the Jewish worshippers who really, really want their children to marry other Jews. Or Democrats who feel that it's a family lifestyle, not an individual political decision. Or wealthy Republicans who prefer that their pampered daughters don't marry a gold-digging penniless idealist. Or police officers who believe their career is a family legacy. Or service members who follow the family tradition of service to country. I believe that every culture has a right to its own biases/cultural preferences -- and that includes all of the white-skinned people who represent cultures unique to people with white skin.
Today, using the race card is morphing into something insidious: denouncing whites as racists for voicing accusations of blatant illegal action, as well as questioning the decisions of the country’s policymakers if the person on the receiving end of the accusations/questions is not white. It's awful when ignorant people believe that everything in life is racially based, but to have it come from the mouth of a former President becomes a precedent: if a former President says it, it must be true -- not just his opinion. His words become the foundation to keep the racism ball rolling through another generation, effectively impeding the progress made with the last Presidential election!
No one should ever be prohibited from asking a question and no one should ever refuse to answer it clearly, concisely, and honestly. We have nothing to fear from the truth and everything to lose from deception that begins with anyone's assumption that a question is a racially motivated action.
I don’t know anyone who is not biased either in favor of a specific aspect of life or against it. Personally, I have issues with people who speak poorly, as well as those who write incomprehensible diatribes against the system that is, in many cases, supporting them. I have issues with bad drivers, especially when they do not possess a valid driver’s license and the mandated insurance coverage for which I pay a tariff tacked on to my own bill: a fee for uninsured drivers, of which I am not one. I also have issues with those who live above their pay grade, fooling themselves into believing that they are worth whatever life has to offer even when they cannot earn it for themselves and/or pay for it. I particularly abhor that any woman pays hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of dollars for shoes: my bias against that kind of flagrant waste of financial resources sets my blood boiling.
The point is I don’t care the skin color, ethnicity, religious or political affiliation of the people who drive me crazy, the people who bring out the worst in me: it’s their actions and words that elicit the response. When people assure me that it “f-ing don’t matter,” I have to bite my tongue before I tell them that it does matter to those who hold themselves to a higher standard than street language in the workplace. I’ve been the victim of several fender-benders, all of which involved negligent drivers, some of whom were not insured, but none of whom qualifies as a minority. My neighborhood is a vast wasteland of empty homes, abandoned by tenants who spent money they did not have to live high on the hog. It happens that I live in a part of the US that has a predominantly Hispanic / African-American population, many of whom also belong to gangs and/or have prison records. That’s geography, not racism. The women who buy the designer shoes live in the designer communities, so I don’t have to deal directly with their flagrant lifestyle choices!
People have biases, but I’m betting that the majority of people’s biases are not racially biased – well, unless you count the African-Americans who insist that black marry black, or the Hispanics who think that brown has to marry brown, or the Oriental who feels that it dilutes their unique ethnicity to marry outside their race, or the Arabs who feel that it dishonors the family if one marries outside of it, or the Greeks who prefer that Greeks marry one of their own, or the Jewish worshippers who really, really want their children to marry other Jews. Or Democrats who feel that it's a family lifestyle, not an individual political decision. Or wealthy Republicans who prefer that their pampered daughters don't marry a gold-digging penniless idealist. Or police officers who believe their career is a family legacy. Or service members who follow the family tradition of service to country. I believe that every culture has a right to its own biases/cultural preferences -- and that includes all of the white-skinned people who represent cultures unique to people with white skin.
Today, using the race card is morphing into something insidious: denouncing whites as racists for voicing accusations of blatant illegal action, as well as questioning the decisions of the country’s policymakers if the person on the receiving end of the accusations/questions is not white. It's awful when ignorant people believe that everything in life is racially based, but to have it come from the mouth of a former President becomes a precedent: if a former President says it, it must be true -- not just his opinion. His words become the foundation to keep the racism ball rolling through another generation, effectively impeding the progress made with the last Presidential election!
No one should ever be prohibited from asking a question and no one should ever refuse to answer it clearly, concisely, and honestly. We have nothing to fear from the truth and everything to lose from deception that begins with anyone's assumption that a question is a racially motivated action.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Obfuscating with Verbiage
A concept I teach all students is the mechanism of obfuscating with verbiage: hiding truth behind a barrage of words. Speaking lots and saying little of any substance. Flooding the airwaves with red herrings to distract from serious social issues that have grave impact on our future.
First, Congressman Wilson did blurt out a spontaneous “You lie.” While a breach of decorum, not an untruth: today’s actions confirm that the President was not telling the truth when he said that no federal monies would be spent to provide health care for illegal aliens, an untruth remedied by the quick passage of a quick fix bill. Congressman Wilson did apologize to the President for his comment, perhaps more honestly and openly than the President apologized to the police officer whose actions the President labeled “stupid.” You say poe-tay-toe and I say poe-tot-oh. Today, it's reported that the President remarked that Kanye West is a “jackass,” so let’s all say “hash browns.” Even Speaker Pelosi said move on, but that was last week in a moment of magnanimous weakness, when she had nothing to gain by censuring Wilson’s unfortunate outburst that lasted oh, about a second!
This week, however, it’s a different story: is an ACORN related to a potato?
The problem is that revelations about ACORN that were squashed during the election have burst to the surface with the release of a series of undercover sting videos by journalists that clearly show that ALL of the years’ worth of accusations against ACORN seem to have substance. Each video is worse than the one before it: people on the government dime are lying, stealing, cheating, breaking laws, but their actions are being obfuscated by the demands that Congressman Wilson again apologize for his spontaneous outburst during the President’s speech.
Last week, the 2010 census administrators distanced the census process from ACORN’s involvement, which will be none. This week, the undercover videos surface. ACORN fires the people shown in the videos while decrying the illegal means used to obtain them. The young reporters say come on, charge us: we’d love to get you all in court for the cross-examination phase of our trials. We all know that this is going to go backward, that the charges against ACORN that arose during the election are going to come back around, and no one wants that to happen – most especially the President of the United States, a former community organizer who benefited hugely from ACORN’s organized efforts to get him elected. The charges of impropriety are still out there, including election fraud, and no one wants that to be targeted for an in-depth Senate investigation because an investigation may reveal truths that will shake the foundations of the current administration.
Better we follow Charlie Sheen’s lead and revisit 9-11: let’s take another look at the government’s involvement in masterminding the events of September 11, 2001. Better that we go back to the prisoners at Gitmo: were they unfairly detained, tortured? Better that we take another look at … anything other than ACORN because any look at ACORN is going to get ugly in a hurry.
Obfuscating with verbiage depends on those being inundated with the words not being able to dig out from under them, in a sense not being able to see the forest for the trees, but many of us are smarter than that. Really. It was a United States Senator, Joseph McCarthy, who took this country to the brink with his charges of Communism that targeted prominent individuals and entertainers; it was a journalist, Edward R. Murrow, who asked the hard questions that both McCarthy and the Senate refused to answer: show me proof of your accusations. It was a media giant, William Randolph Hearst, who used his publishing empire to encourage McCarthy’s witch hunt and squash the opposition to it because it was in his best financial interests to continue to whip up the frenzy.
Absolute power does have a tendency to corrupt absolutely. Is a similar pattern developing here? If we refuse to learn from our past, we are committed to repeating it.
First, Congressman Wilson did blurt out a spontaneous “You lie.” While a breach of decorum, not an untruth: today’s actions confirm that the President was not telling the truth when he said that no federal monies would be spent to provide health care for illegal aliens, an untruth remedied by the quick passage of a quick fix bill. Congressman Wilson did apologize to the President for his comment, perhaps more honestly and openly than the President apologized to the police officer whose actions the President labeled “stupid.” You say poe-tay-toe and I say poe-tot-oh. Today, it's reported that the President remarked that Kanye West is a “jackass,” so let’s all say “hash browns.” Even Speaker Pelosi said move on, but that was last week in a moment of magnanimous weakness, when she had nothing to gain by censuring Wilson’s unfortunate outburst that lasted oh, about a second!
This week, however, it’s a different story: is an ACORN related to a potato?
The problem is that revelations about ACORN that were squashed during the election have burst to the surface with the release of a series of undercover sting videos by journalists that clearly show that ALL of the years’ worth of accusations against ACORN seem to have substance. Each video is worse than the one before it: people on the government dime are lying, stealing, cheating, breaking laws, but their actions are being obfuscated by the demands that Congressman Wilson again apologize for his spontaneous outburst during the President’s speech.
Last week, the 2010 census administrators distanced the census process from ACORN’s involvement, which will be none. This week, the undercover videos surface. ACORN fires the people shown in the videos while decrying the illegal means used to obtain them. The young reporters say come on, charge us: we’d love to get you all in court for the cross-examination phase of our trials. We all know that this is going to go backward, that the charges against ACORN that arose during the election are going to come back around, and no one wants that to happen – most especially the President of the United States, a former community organizer who benefited hugely from ACORN’s organized efforts to get him elected. The charges of impropriety are still out there, including election fraud, and no one wants that to be targeted for an in-depth Senate investigation because an investigation may reveal truths that will shake the foundations of the current administration.
Better we follow Charlie Sheen’s lead and revisit 9-11: let’s take another look at the government’s involvement in masterminding the events of September 11, 2001. Better that we go back to the prisoners at Gitmo: were they unfairly detained, tortured? Better that we take another look at … anything other than ACORN because any look at ACORN is going to get ugly in a hurry.
Obfuscating with verbiage depends on those being inundated with the words not being able to dig out from under them, in a sense not being able to see the forest for the trees, but many of us are smarter than that. Really. It was a United States Senator, Joseph McCarthy, who took this country to the brink with his charges of Communism that targeted prominent individuals and entertainers; it was a journalist, Edward R. Murrow, who asked the hard questions that both McCarthy and the Senate refused to answer: show me proof of your accusations. It was a media giant, William Randolph Hearst, who used his publishing empire to encourage McCarthy’s witch hunt and squash the opposition to it because it was in his best financial interests to continue to whip up the frenzy.
Absolute power does have a tendency to corrupt absolutely. Is a similar pattern developing here? If we refuse to learn from our past, we are committed to repeating it.
Friday, September 11, 2009
And This is a Good Idea How?
It isn’t often that one can apply the old saw, “cutting off your nose to spite your face,” to an actual life event, but when it happens, it happens. On the way to LaJolla today, I heard a news reporter explain that Ellen is being sued for playing the music to which she, and often her guests, dance at the opening of her TV show. Seems that the record company executive voicing the complaint has never received a check from Ellen – and the label wants her to pay them the money for the music.
I have a limited knowledge of contemporary music, but Ellen’s musical knowledge is legendary – along with her showcase of both new music and new musicians. Ellen’s endorsement of music is analagous to Oprah’s book club: if Ellen plays it, dances to it, hypes it – it makes money. Lots of money. For the artist, as well as the label.
If Ellen says, gentlemen, here’s a check; I won’t be playing any more of your label's music, I can pretty much guarantee that will be not just a deal breaker for Ellen, but a career-ending decision for the idiot who thought this was a good idea. Bad business decision even during a booming economy. In this economy, your lawsuit defines bad business practice.
I’d be crawling on my hands and knees to beg Ellen’s forgiveness for my momentary loss of sanity and the public declaration that she owes me anything. I'd be supplying her with free music for as along as her show is on-air. And all her friends, family, shirt-tail relatives: you get the picture?
I'm just sayin' ...
I have a limited knowledge of contemporary music, but Ellen’s musical knowledge is legendary – along with her showcase of both new music and new musicians. Ellen’s endorsement of music is analagous to Oprah’s book club: if Ellen plays it, dances to it, hypes it – it makes money. Lots of money. For the artist, as well as the label.
If Ellen says, gentlemen, here’s a check; I won’t be playing any more of your label's music, I can pretty much guarantee that will be not just a deal breaker for Ellen, but a career-ending decision for the idiot who thought this was a good idea. Bad business decision even during a booming economy. In this economy, your lawsuit defines bad business practice.
I’d be crawling on my hands and knees to beg Ellen’s forgiveness for my momentary loss of sanity and the public declaration that she owes me anything. I'd be supplying her with free music for as along as her show is on-air. And all her friends, family, shirt-tail relatives: you get the picture?
I'm just sayin' ...
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
PETAs Unhappy Target: Mickey D's
PETA is an organization of passionate people who support humane treatment for all animals, but especially those that are raised as a food source. The organization has documented extensive cruelty to what can only be called disposal animals in the breeding, force-feeding, and often cruel and unusual methods of death for animals bred as a food source. PETA's concerns are appropriate and should be addressed by the food industry, which seems loathe to do so.
Making our children responsible for the actions of those who commit the atrocities against animals is particularly abhorrent. The new Unhappy Meal campaign targets children and puts the burden of cleaning up the industry on their shoulders. Children are not the perpetrators of the way the chickens raised for Mc Nuggets are bred, fed, and slaughtered: they are simply innocent consumers. While the organizational management team of McDonald's can both understand and effect change, the youngest consumers cannot, so why has PETA targeted the children to clean up the slaughterhouses?
Children receive visual stimuli that lasts a lifetime, especially when they have no context for making meaning of what they see. Opening an Unhappy Meal and finding what appears to be blood smeared on the food wrapper traumatizes a child: it does not call that child to take action against the corporation who sells the food product. Receiving a t-shirt with a bloody graphic and message that most children cannot read does nothing to further PETA's goals, but it does alienate the parent who has to explain the graphic and read the logo.
I cannot imagine that any PETA parent actually thinks the current publicity campaign against McDonald's is not just a good idea, but the best idea they've had in years. My children are grown and I am still angered by the tactic of targeting children as responsible for adult decision-making. My reaction is not to avoid McDonald's and Happy Meals, but to protest PETA's mission, even if it means buying myself a Happy Meal!
Making our children responsible for the actions of those who commit the atrocities against animals is particularly abhorrent. The new Unhappy Meal campaign targets children and puts the burden of cleaning up the industry on their shoulders. Children are not the perpetrators of the way the chickens raised for Mc Nuggets are bred, fed, and slaughtered: they are simply innocent consumers. While the organizational management team of McDonald's can both understand and effect change, the youngest consumers cannot, so why has PETA targeted the children to clean up the slaughterhouses?
Children receive visual stimuli that lasts a lifetime, especially when they have no context for making meaning of what they see. Opening an Unhappy Meal and finding what appears to be blood smeared on the food wrapper traumatizes a child: it does not call that child to take action against the corporation who sells the food product. Receiving a t-shirt with a bloody graphic and message that most children cannot read does nothing to further PETA's goals, but it does alienate the parent who has to explain the graphic and read the logo.
I cannot imagine that any PETA parent actually thinks the current publicity campaign against McDonald's is not just a good idea, but the best idea they've had in years. My children are grown and I am still angered by the tactic of targeting children as responsible for adult decision-making. My reaction is not to avoid McDonald's and Happy Meals, but to protest PETA's mission, even if it means buying myself a Happy Meal!
Saturday, September 5, 2009
To What (Greater) Purpose?
The reason it used to be common practice in business for employees to work "30 and out" is that cycles change completely during 30 years: perhaps a couple of times. What existed when an employee was hired is no longer part of the paradigm when the same employee reaches age 60. Thus, it is easier to retire that employee than to provide answers to hard questions, such as why?
One of the most significant changes during my classroom tenure has been the inclusion of diversity, which meant the exclusion of many educational principles and practices, such as specific language to describe occupations; i.e., mailman has become letter carrier and/or postal service employee, serviceman is now service member, mankind is now either humankind or personhood, and there are both actors and actresses. Stripping words of unique characteristics often changes both the original intent and the impact of the word, but someone decided about 40 years ago that the language would benefit from non-gender-specificity and, thus, it became policy and practice.
If a teacher does not agree and/or insists on using the old-fashioned expressions, s/he could well lose his/her job and/or be subjected to disciplinary intervention by his/her site administrator.
This week, our school children are being inducted into a self-aggrandizing educational approach to set the tone for the newest generation of schoolchildren: rather than asking students to define global goals and objectives for themselves, their community, and their country, children are being asked what they each can do to assist the (first African-American) President of the United States to reach his (there is no her) goals. Perhaps this approach is a step up from the denigration of the previous (American) President of the United States, who was openly trashed in classrooms across the country during the last Presidential election by fair-minded citizens and teachers without repercussion, but it is still an unusual tact to teach children to use in their political future.
Imagine if I asked the students in my high school classroom to write a letter to me detailing how each of them will help me to achieve my personal goals during the coming year: WTF? No way! That conversation would escalate to the "What the hell are you thinking?" firestorm that would rage through the family and occupy my planning period in front of the site administrator for the next month or so. Back in the early days, teacher training included working with students to set incremental educational (and, sometimes personal behavioral) goals for themselves that could be monitored throughout the school year. The goals were for the student's success, not for the teacher's: it was assumed that the teacher had a different set of goals, both professional and personal, and would work to accomplish those as the children worked on their goals.
The photogenic young spokesperson justified that it was a mis-step in preparing the educational materials, not a political crisis, and expressed her angst that there is so much over-reaction to such a simple assignment that has already been fixed. She apparently either lacks the wisdom of the ages and/or job experience to follow the logic of the citizens who are questioning the educational implications of the big picture: (1) why is the President's (political) speech being required nation-wide as part of this semester's curriculum from grades K-12 (2) how bias-free are the materials (including political, gender, and racial point of view) (3) what is the educational value of the activity?
If the only justification is "because I say so," the whole idea is on shaky ground.
The independent thinking process of the individual citizen in the United States of America is paramount to the democratic political system. It is a pain in the ass to have a parent come charging into the classroom, demanding why? why? why?, but knowing that parent is always on the way in helps each of us to prepare better lessons and to do a better job for the students in the seats. It isn't about me keeping my job; it's about me doing my job. If I don't know what I am doing, why I am doing it, and the goal for what I've planned, I have no business doing it.
If the goal of the President's speech is to engage students in the politics of the country, perhaps a better question than how each of them can help the President set and achieve his goals requires the changing of one word: how can each of them help the country to achieve its goals. The President's job is to set his own goals, personally and professionally, and then work to achieve them, even by asking his two school-age daughters for their input. If he does not feel that he can do that over the course of a four-year term in office without input from the nation's school children, perhaps he needs to fend off the questions of the irate parents and be called to the principal's office, too.
One of the most significant changes during my classroom tenure has been the inclusion of diversity, which meant the exclusion of many educational principles and practices, such as specific language to describe occupations; i.e., mailman has become letter carrier and/or postal service employee, serviceman is now service member, mankind is now either humankind or personhood, and there are both actors and actresses. Stripping words of unique characteristics often changes both the original intent and the impact of the word, but someone decided about 40 years ago that the language would benefit from non-gender-specificity and, thus, it became policy and practice.
If a teacher does not agree and/or insists on using the old-fashioned expressions, s/he could well lose his/her job and/or be subjected to disciplinary intervention by his/her site administrator.
This week, our school children are being inducted into a self-aggrandizing educational approach to set the tone for the newest generation of schoolchildren: rather than asking students to define global goals and objectives for themselves, their community, and their country, children are being asked what they each can do to assist the (first African-American) President of the United States to reach his (there is no her) goals. Perhaps this approach is a step up from the denigration of the previous (American) President of the United States, who was openly trashed in classrooms across the country during the last Presidential election by fair-minded citizens and teachers without repercussion, but it is still an unusual tact to teach children to use in their political future.
Imagine if I asked the students in my high school classroom to write a letter to me detailing how each of them will help me to achieve my personal goals during the coming year: WTF? No way! That conversation would escalate to the "What the hell are you thinking?" firestorm that would rage through the family and occupy my planning period in front of the site administrator for the next month or so. Back in the early days, teacher training included working with students to set incremental educational (and, sometimes personal behavioral) goals for themselves that could be monitored throughout the school year. The goals were for the student's success, not for the teacher's: it was assumed that the teacher had a different set of goals, both professional and personal, and would work to accomplish those as the children worked on their goals.
The photogenic young spokesperson justified that it was a mis-step in preparing the educational materials, not a political crisis, and expressed her angst that there is so much over-reaction to such a simple assignment that has already been fixed. She apparently either lacks the wisdom of the ages and/or job experience to follow the logic of the citizens who are questioning the educational implications of the big picture: (1) why is the President's (political) speech being required nation-wide as part of this semester's curriculum from grades K-12 (2) how bias-free are the materials (including political, gender, and racial point of view) (3) what is the educational value of the activity?
If the only justification is "because I say so," the whole idea is on shaky ground.
The independent thinking process of the individual citizen in the United States of America is paramount to the democratic political system. It is a pain in the ass to have a parent come charging into the classroom, demanding why? why? why?, but knowing that parent is always on the way in helps each of us to prepare better lessons and to do a better job for the students in the seats. It isn't about me keeping my job; it's about me doing my job. If I don't know what I am doing, why I am doing it, and the goal for what I've planned, I have no business doing it.
If the goal of the President's speech is to engage students in the politics of the country, perhaps a better question than how each of them can help the President set and achieve his goals requires the changing of one word: how can each of them help the country to achieve its goals. The President's job is to set his own goals, personally and professionally, and then work to achieve them, even by asking his two school-age daughters for their input. If he does not feel that he can do that over the course of a four-year term in office without input from the nation's school children, perhaps he needs to fend off the questions of the irate parents and be called to the principal's office, too.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Silver Threads Among the Dog Hair
Have to say that this getting old phase of life is tedious on a good day and downright troublesome on the rest of the days. Here's the latest installment in "what? why can't I do that?" that has become my life.
It is time to shampoo the carpet -- again -- as Mia, for being a short-haired dog, is also a shedding, dirty dog. She brings in landscape rock between her toes, wipes the sand out of her fur on the carpet, and spreads dog food and drinking water throughout the kitchen/hallway area. Vacuuming doesn't do the job: I can vacuum every which way and still have dirty carpet, so I bought a rug shampooer a while back and have learned to be quite proficient with it.
Yesterday, I bounced out of bed bright and early planning to finish the dirty work before it got too hot to move. I vacuumed straight up and down, then across, then diagonally before firing up the shampooer. After filling the well with soap and water, the darned machine would not work, so I took it apart and found one of the landscape rocks caught in the mechanism. After retrieving the rock, time for shampooing.
Again, straight up and down, then across, then diagonally, picking up so much dog hair that it's really astounding: a full plastic grocery bag by the end of the process. Of course, the wet black hair comes out on the newly-clean carpet and can only be removed with a wire brush and then going back over what's already been done to pick up what's deposited on the carpet by the shampooer. By the time I was finished with the living room carpeting, I was totally exhausted ... but ...
had decided to clean the matching couches as they were rank. Really rank. Of course, to clean them, they needed to be in the garage, and whereas I used to move them in and out with nary a twinge, yesterday darned near did me in. Either the couches got bigger or the door got smaller because it was a son of a gun moving the couches out -- and we can forget about what it took to bring them back in this morning!
Because the stench was over-powering, I decided to remove the couch cushions and replace the foam inserts. What a great idea and what another impossible task. I did buy $100 worth of 4" foam this morning and cut the new cushions, while the cushion covers went through 4 separate washes: yes, four. What part of "rank" do you not understand? After the covers dried to touch, I bent, prodded, and pushed the new foam pieces into the cushion covers, zipped the zipper, and brought them back inside. End result is good, but OMG.
As my dotter told me, "Mom, there are people you can call to do this." My mind tells me yes, yes, but my stubborn nature abhors paying anyone to do that which I can do for myself. Maybe next time, I'll remember this time and not be so committed to doing it myself.
Then there is the matter of the filthy rugs that I put down in what appears to be a feeble attempt to keep Mia from shedding hair all over the carpet. I threw it all out and bought new: WalMart at 8:00 am was a vast wasteland, thanks to the beginning of the schoolyear, so I actually stood at the carpet bin and picked out an area rug, rather than picking up something, anything, just so I can get out of the wholesale shopping experience. I added a small piece for the door to the garage and another rug for the kitchen sink, so the house has spots of color.
The best part, after the 3 aspirin alleviated some of the physical pain, was receiving a delivery from 1-800 FLOWERS: a beautiful plant in thanks for the skills edit of the book. As they say, timing is everything.
It is time to shampoo the carpet -- again -- as Mia, for being a short-haired dog, is also a shedding, dirty dog. She brings in landscape rock between her toes, wipes the sand out of her fur on the carpet, and spreads dog food and drinking water throughout the kitchen/hallway area. Vacuuming doesn't do the job: I can vacuum every which way and still have dirty carpet, so I bought a rug shampooer a while back and have learned to be quite proficient with it.
Yesterday, I bounced out of bed bright and early planning to finish the dirty work before it got too hot to move. I vacuumed straight up and down, then across, then diagonally before firing up the shampooer. After filling the well with soap and water, the darned machine would not work, so I took it apart and found one of the landscape rocks caught in the mechanism. After retrieving the rock, time for shampooing.
Again, straight up and down, then across, then diagonally, picking up so much dog hair that it's really astounding: a full plastic grocery bag by the end of the process. Of course, the wet black hair comes out on the newly-clean carpet and can only be removed with a wire brush and then going back over what's already been done to pick up what's deposited on the carpet by the shampooer. By the time I was finished with the living room carpeting, I was totally exhausted ... but ...
had decided to clean the matching couches as they were rank. Really rank. Of course, to clean them, they needed to be in the garage, and whereas I used to move them in and out with nary a twinge, yesterday darned near did me in. Either the couches got bigger or the door got smaller because it was a son of a gun moving the couches out -- and we can forget about what it took to bring them back in this morning!
Because the stench was over-powering, I decided to remove the couch cushions and replace the foam inserts. What a great idea and what another impossible task. I did buy $100 worth of 4" foam this morning and cut the new cushions, while the cushion covers went through 4 separate washes: yes, four. What part of "rank" do you not understand? After the covers dried to touch, I bent, prodded, and pushed the new foam pieces into the cushion covers, zipped the zipper, and brought them back inside. End result is good, but OMG.
As my dotter told me, "Mom, there are people you can call to do this." My mind tells me yes, yes, but my stubborn nature abhors paying anyone to do that which I can do for myself. Maybe next time, I'll remember this time and not be so committed to doing it myself.
Then there is the matter of the filthy rugs that I put down in what appears to be a feeble attempt to keep Mia from shedding hair all over the carpet. I threw it all out and bought new: WalMart at 8:00 am was a vast wasteland, thanks to the beginning of the schoolyear, so I actually stood at the carpet bin and picked out an area rug, rather than picking up something, anything, just so I can get out of the wholesale shopping experience. I added a small piece for the door to the garage and another rug for the kitchen sink, so the house has spots of color.
The best part, after the 3 aspirin alleviated some of the physical pain, was receiving a delivery from 1-800 FLOWERS: a beautiful plant in thanks for the skills edit of the book. As they say, timing is everything.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Little Bird, Little Bird: What Do You See?
The multiple-dwelling residence next door to me was abandoned at least two years ago and has fallen into quite a state of disrepair: the yard is dead; the main house looks forlorn; the back two-story apartment is as it was left, with broken windows upstairs. I check on it every time I go into the backyard and when Mia runs to the fence and barks, but it's been the same for a long time.
Now, it's changed.
The two broken windows upstairs have been replaced and there is a venetian blind on the "big" window that faces my yard. I think it was done either Sunday or Monday, but I'm not sure because the first time I noticed the change was Monday, when I arrived back home from work. I'd love to see a new owner complete much-needed repairs and inhabit the property, but I don't think that's what's going on.
No one has been there: no trucks, no workers. Sometimes, I hear construction noises, but I've never seen anyone. The driveway runs along our shared fence, with a large open garage at the back of the main house and a parking area by the two-story rentals. No one has been there: no one.
So, here's my conspiracy theory.
On the other side of the property is a small home occupied by a lot of people, including some who sleep on the grass (I think). I'm also pretty sure that the garage has been turned into an extra room as the cars are always parked in the driveway or at the street edge. There are always people outside the home and recently there have been extra vehicles, which indicate to me that the people who live there have guests (lots of Hispanic families in the area rent a home and fill it with relatives from Mexico who come to work, but don't want to pay for separate living). When I moved into my home as a lessee, the landlord wrote into the agreement that no more than 6 people could reside in the home and he also included a statement that he would check on occupancy monthly. He arrived at the 6 based on 2 persons per bedroom, but also based on his experience with other rentals in which he found as many as a dozen or more people camping. I noticed a similar housing situation when the young couple bought the home on the other side of me, which they have since abandoned: relatives from Mexico often slept on the floors and in the garage.
I think the people on the other side of the property have come through the fence separating the two properties (there are several wooden planks missing), gone upstairs (the stairs are next to the fence), have made some minor repairs to the apartment -- and are illegally living there. They probably would also be in the downstairs apartment, but that door faces my backyard and I would see them, whereas anyone can come and go without my knowledge due to the placement of the entrance to the upstairs apartment.
I'm not going to report this suspicious activity because it's better to have someone on the property than to have it vacant -- and the fact that the windows have been replaced indicates that whoever is living there is taking care of the apartment. I don't know which bank owns the property, but no one has set foot on the ground next door in well over a year, which indicates no one really gives a rat's ass about the condition of the real estate. Pretty soon, it'll be cheaper to raze the property than to repair it, one of the associated costs of the real estate crash in the area.
Because it really isn't any of my business I'll keep my nose on my side of the fence unless what's going on there becomes an issue in my yard.
Now, it's changed.
The two broken windows upstairs have been replaced and there is a venetian blind on the "big" window that faces my yard. I think it was done either Sunday or Monday, but I'm not sure because the first time I noticed the change was Monday, when I arrived back home from work. I'd love to see a new owner complete much-needed repairs and inhabit the property, but I don't think that's what's going on.
No one has been there: no trucks, no workers. Sometimes, I hear construction noises, but I've never seen anyone. The driveway runs along our shared fence, with a large open garage at the back of the main house and a parking area by the two-story rentals. No one has been there: no one.
So, here's my conspiracy theory.
On the other side of the property is a small home occupied by a lot of people, including some who sleep on the grass (I think). I'm also pretty sure that the garage has been turned into an extra room as the cars are always parked in the driveway or at the street edge. There are always people outside the home and recently there have been extra vehicles, which indicate to me that the people who live there have guests (lots of Hispanic families in the area rent a home and fill it with relatives from Mexico who come to work, but don't want to pay for separate living). When I moved into my home as a lessee, the landlord wrote into the agreement that no more than 6 people could reside in the home and he also included a statement that he would check on occupancy monthly. He arrived at the 6 based on 2 persons per bedroom, but also based on his experience with other rentals in which he found as many as a dozen or more people camping. I noticed a similar housing situation when the young couple bought the home on the other side of me, which they have since abandoned: relatives from Mexico often slept on the floors and in the garage.
I think the people on the other side of the property have come through the fence separating the two properties (there are several wooden planks missing), gone upstairs (the stairs are next to the fence), have made some minor repairs to the apartment -- and are illegally living there. They probably would also be in the downstairs apartment, but that door faces my backyard and I would see them, whereas anyone can come and go without my knowledge due to the placement of the entrance to the upstairs apartment.
I'm not going to report this suspicious activity because it's better to have someone on the property than to have it vacant -- and the fact that the windows have been replaced indicates that whoever is living there is taking care of the apartment. I don't know which bank owns the property, but no one has set foot on the ground next door in well over a year, which indicates no one really gives a rat's ass about the condition of the real estate. Pretty soon, it'll be cheaper to raze the property than to repair it, one of the associated costs of the real estate crash in the area.
Because it really isn't any of my business I'll keep my nose on my side of the fence unless what's going on there becomes an issue in my yard.
Wireless at Last
Don't know how/why or whatever, but I tried the wireless router again -- and it's working. You have NO IDEA how tickled I am!!
And the new laptop is screamin' fast. Yippee!
And the new laptop is screamin' fast. Yippee!
Publish or Perish
A newspaper cannot sustain itself if no one receives it, so many papers have turned to on-line publishing, creating a situation where no one needs the paper if it’s available on-line. The questions are many, including how to ask consumers to pay for a product they already receive free, as well as can a paper survive in a virtual world? There are no easy answers and, perhaps, no real answers, but some ideas have been swirling around my brain.
First, there is a kinesthetic connection to reading: the process of holding, touching the pages, and turning them are integral to the reading process. When students are directed to "open the book to page whatever," the kinesthetic relationship begins. Students often add to the kinesthetic process with margin notes, underlining, highlighting, bending and folding pages. My textbooks also are indexed with bright tabs that provide a quick reference for finding what I need when I need it. On-line classes are challenging on so many levels, one of which is the necessity of on-line resources that include not just the course materials, but the required auxiliary readings. The new hand-held electronic readers may be fine for pleasure reading, but for the lasting kind of comprehension that develops during coursework, in preparation for a court case, in some research and development businesses, the materials must be readily available and in the hands of the reader. For some of us, the only way to read, comprehend, and make meaning of the materials is to print it, hold it in our hands, and mark it up. Those students who rely solely on virtual documents do not have the same level of retention as those who hold the materials and interact kinesthetically with them.
Another aspect of the reading process that is often over-looked online is the go back: the first time through even a sentence can be confusing, so the reader often naturally goes back, rereads, and then continues. Part of the go-back process is thumbing through the pages to find the specific content, the kinesthia of which often serves as a memory aid. Going back at the time and on the page is an easy option, but going back online to a specific URL to reread is often more difficult than the rewards of the effort to do so. What many readers develop is surface reading skills, reading and retaining just enough key information to present a vague overview, but not retaining enough deep details to speak knowledgeably—sort of the “there is guy who shot another guy and … .” Gross generalities are seldom sufficient in many areas of our lives that need to know who, when, what, where, why and how.
What, perhaps, needs refocusing exists on the financial plane of publication: too many workers earn too much money to fill the pages needed to justify the expensive printing process, and there is limited ad revenue to pay for the process and the people. In the good times, we bloat our businesses with “wouldn’t it be great to have someone who could” employees. In my field, education, it’s the aide syndrome; every time there is a little bit of wiggle room, we add another office worker, playground supervisor, tech assistant, custodian, groundskeeper, employees whose union is far stronger than the teacher’s union and whose jobs are far more tenaciously secure than non-tenured teachers. They may be the last in, but often those aide workers are the hardest to let go. In publishing, good reporters earn higher salaries, so they are let go long before the office workers who type the copy, who answer the phones, who keep the building open. No one wants to take a voluntary pay cut as it takes so long to climb to the top of the professional pile, but one of the realities of a poorly-performing economy is that too many people are being paid too much money to do a job that may not be worth what the employee earns. For every employee earning $50,000 in annual salary there has to be revenue source, which means the cost of the goods/services has to be increased to match salary increases and publication costs. There are some finite limits to how much people can afford to pay for a newspaper, a magazine, a colorful advertising brochure.
The obvious solution to part of the problem is to cut personnel and cut production: fewer people put out a smaller paper. However, the cost ratio remains intact: it really does take so many people to publish a product, and some of the costs are fixed. While employees can work together to improve efficiency, as well as effectiveness of the product, and may accept a cut in pay in the process, it still is going to cost what it costs to publish the publication, fixed costs that can be circumvented by online publishing. However, who is going to pay for the costs associated with the staff required to research, report, write, and publish the newspaper online? Readers who are receiving the newspaper free are not suddenly going to rise up and demand that they be billed for the privilege: we are, after all, only human. Not many people are going to write for free, but yes, it is possible to pay less salary for online correspondents if the publisher realizes and accepts that the quality of the content will suffer as a result. Journalism is a legitimate profession; blogger is an individual indulgence.
An auto-charge to an established account every time a user logs on is fair, perhaps a dollar; however, if an individual wants to post reactions to the news, in effect becoming an online correspondent, the fee should be higher—perhaps $20. Not only would this keep narcissists and blowhards from flooding online newspapers with inane, inflammatory, and/or inappropriate commentary, but people who have something to say would take the time to say it well because it is no longer “free” speech. I would pay a monthly maintenance fee of $20 to maintain my blog because it’s an important outlet for my “free” thinking, often thoughts and ideas for which I have no other outlet. Phone companies charge for texting and twittering, so the mindset exists that electronic input comes with a price and can be associated to online publishing as well.
The paradigm has already shifted, but we’re still talking about how we’ve always done it, which is one of my pet peeves, especially during the early years of my career when I railed about doing the same event every year based on the flimsy “it’s a tradition” reasoning. As people change, their lives change, and society changes to encompass those changes. It’s not whether I agree with it, but whether I can accept the changes that matter. Publishers who keep their companies chained to the same business plan they adopted milestone years ago will perish if they refuse to study the habits of the consumers and tailor the product toward those habits. Maybe we all need to go back into the garage with an old mimeograph machine and hand-crank the neighborhood newsletters again to see where we have gone wrong and the direction we need to be heading.
First, there is a kinesthetic connection to reading: the process of holding, touching the pages, and turning them are integral to the reading process. When students are directed to "open the book to page whatever," the kinesthetic relationship begins. Students often add to the kinesthetic process with margin notes, underlining, highlighting, bending and folding pages. My textbooks also are indexed with bright tabs that provide a quick reference for finding what I need when I need it. On-line classes are challenging on so many levels, one of which is the necessity of on-line resources that include not just the course materials, but the required auxiliary readings. The new hand-held electronic readers may be fine for pleasure reading, but for the lasting kind of comprehension that develops during coursework, in preparation for a court case, in some research and development businesses, the materials must be readily available and in the hands of the reader. For some of us, the only way to read, comprehend, and make meaning of the materials is to print it, hold it in our hands, and mark it up. Those students who rely solely on virtual documents do not have the same level of retention as those who hold the materials and interact kinesthetically with them.
Another aspect of the reading process that is often over-looked online is the go back: the first time through even a sentence can be confusing, so the reader often naturally goes back, rereads, and then continues. Part of the go-back process is thumbing through the pages to find the specific content, the kinesthia of which often serves as a memory aid. Going back at the time and on the page is an easy option, but going back online to a specific URL to reread is often more difficult than the rewards of the effort to do so. What many readers develop is surface reading skills, reading and retaining just enough key information to present a vague overview, but not retaining enough deep details to speak knowledgeably—sort of the “there is guy who shot another guy and … .” Gross generalities are seldom sufficient in many areas of our lives that need to know who, when, what, where, why and how.
What, perhaps, needs refocusing exists on the financial plane of publication: too many workers earn too much money to fill the pages needed to justify the expensive printing process, and there is limited ad revenue to pay for the process and the people. In the good times, we bloat our businesses with “wouldn’t it be great to have someone who could” employees. In my field, education, it’s the aide syndrome; every time there is a little bit of wiggle room, we add another office worker, playground supervisor, tech assistant, custodian, groundskeeper, employees whose union is far stronger than the teacher’s union and whose jobs are far more tenaciously secure than non-tenured teachers. They may be the last in, but often those aide workers are the hardest to let go. In publishing, good reporters earn higher salaries, so they are let go long before the office workers who type the copy, who answer the phones, who keep the building open. No one wants to take a voluntary pay cut as it takes so long to climb to the top of the professional pile, but one of the realities of a poorly-performing economy is that too many people are being paid too much money to do a job that may not be worth what the employee earns. For every employee earning $50,000 in annual salary there has to be revenue source, which means the cost of the goods/services has to be increased to match salary increases and publication costs. There are some finite limits to how much people can afford to pay for a newspaper, a magazine, a colorful advertising brochure.
The obvious solution to part of the problem is to cut personnel and cut production: fewer people put out a smaller paper. However, the cost ratio remains intact: it really does take so many people to publish a product, and some of the costs are fixed. While employees can work together to improve efficiency, as well as effectiveness of the product, and may accept a cut in pay in the process, it still is going to cost what it costs to publish the publication, fixed costs that can be circumvented by online publishing. However, who is going to pay for the costs associated with the staff required to research, report, write, and publish the newspaper online? Readers who are receiving the newspaper free are not suddenly going to rise up and demand that they be billed for the privilege: we are, after all, only human. Not many people are going to write for free, but yes, it is possible to pay less salary for online correspondents if the publisher realizes and accepts that the quality of the content will suffer as a result. Journalism is a legitimate profession; blogger is an individual indulgence.
An auto-charge to an established account every time a user logs on is fair, perhaps a dollar; however, if an individual wants to post reactions to the news, in effect becoming an online correspondent, the fee should be higher—perhaps $20. Not only would this keep narcissists and blowhards from flooding online newspapers with inane, inflammatory, and/or inappropriate commentary, but people who have something to say would take the time to say it well because it is no longer “free” speech. I would pay a monthly maintenance fee of $20 to maintain my blog because it’s an important outlet for my “free” thinking, often thoughts and ideas for which I have no other outlet. Phone companies charge for texting and twittering, so the mindset exists that electronic input comes with a price and can be associated to online publishing as well.
The paradigm has already shifted, but we’re still talking about how we’ve always done it, which is one of my pet peeves, especially during the early years of my career when I railed about doing the same event every year based on the flimsy “it’s a tradition” reasoning. As people change, their lives change, and society changes to encompass those changes. It’s not whether I agree with it, but whether I can accept the changes that matter. Publishers who keep their companies chained to the same business plan they adopted milestone years ago will perish if they refuse to study the habits of the consumers and tailor the product toward those habits. Maybe we all need to go back into the garage with an old mimeograph machine and hand-crank the neighborhood newsletters again to see where we have gone wrong and the direction we need to be heading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)