Last week was interesting, frustrating, and quite a treat once I made the personal decision to let go of the back/hips/knee issues for the time being. My body has been so tense that I literally could not bend over to tie my shoes -- and this with 5 weeks of physical therapy behind me. I consulted (okay, confronted) the PT last Wednesday and flat-out told him that I'm where I was when we began this journey, and if there isn't something "concrete" that I can do to improve my physical situation, I'm finished with PT. He was a bit taken aback (I do have that effect at times) and did a bit of what I call the Texas Two-Step, dancing around my concerns and reinforcing his agenda.
When all was said and nothing done, I canceled my Friday appointment and decided that I was going to live the next 4 days without my physical issues being primary. That must have been the right decision because I finally slept through the night without being reawakened constantly with shooting pains in my back/hips. I tried a different pair of shoes, which also seem to have helped my ability to stand straight and feel strong. I bought the recommended lumbar pillows, one of which is behind my back as I drive, and that seems to have contributed to a more positive physical feeling. I visited with my dear friend and enjoyed an outside impromptu picnic in gorgeous SoCal beach weather. All my grades and paperwork are caught up, I finished another square in the crazy afghan I'm knitting, and walked the dogs on slightly longer walks than we have been taking.
I treated myself to some baking! After watching the finale of Buddy's search for the Next Great Baker, stunned that the person who baked a white cake for a client who specified chocolate cake was selected as the best of the rest, I took my frustration out in the kitchen. While I lived (briefly) in Texas, I loved the fact that everyone I knew cooked and baked and barbequed and invited people over at least once a week. I happily joined that social circle and learned how to prepare brisket, as well as Texas-style sheet cake, a must at every social gathering. I also was taught how to make Texas Turtles, a recipe that begins with a bottle of bourbon and ends in lots of chocolate. Even though they did not turn out as well as I had hoped, they combine bourbon, pecans and chocolate, so whatever. A favorite recipe I found years ago on the internet began my baking binge and it ended with several plates of goodies that will be distributed today.
I called B and paid him to reinstall the metal security screen next door, which he did, even though part of the frame was missing. He screwed the door into the door jamb, which is only a deterrent and not going to stop a determined criminal from breaking and entering.
I scooped poop, so the yard is not quite the toxic site it had been since before Christmas.
I finished the new Temperence Brennen novel I purchased while visiting my friend on the coast. Good read that I'll pass on.
I watched the Pro Bowl, but I again wondered why: it's kinda like watching college boys tossing the ball in the park, but the pros wear really tight pants and shirts, while the college guys wear sexy blue jeans and skin. Personally, I like the jeans/bare chests and would enjoy the Pro Bowl more if it were a great game of touch football played in the park!
What's in store this week? I begin with a trip to the dentist, but I'm not sure how I'll get there as, due to really strong winds over the weekend, most of the roads across the freeway are again closed. My appointment is early, so I'll be in the line with the employees trying to make it to work on time. After the dental appointment, I PT, prep for tonight's class, walk the dogs, and go to work.
This week, I'm going to begin it believing that it'll be another great one: the power of positive thinking seems to work well for me.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
What Was I Thinking??
Last weekend, a small, red, extended cab, older model pick-up truck drove onto the vacant property next door, up to the open, but vacant, garage area and the two-story apartments at the back of the driveway. I could hear him talking on his phone, in Spanish, but didn't see anyone else with him. At the time, I thought, "Hmm. Wonder if someone is casing the place for a burglary?"
A couple of nights later, at midnight, I heard what sounded like someone trying to kick in a door, but could not tell where the sound originated, so went back to sleep.
Today, the dogs let me know that someone was next door, so I looked out the kitchen window and saw a medium tall, somewhat chunky, apparently Hispanic male, dressed in the uniform of black knee-length shorts, running shoes, and a hoodie, walk to the first-floor apartment and pull on the screen door. Thinking the behavior suspicious, especially coming after last weekend's event, I called the local police -- who, of course, could not do anything because the man left the property, got back into the big green pick-up, and left.
About 10 minutes later, I again heard the same engine sound, looked out to see the same big green pick-up, and watched the same male dressed in the same uniform go directly to the metal screen door of the apartment at the end of the driveway, and begin to remove it. I again called the police, explained that a male was removing the metal screen door, but that the big green pick-up had driven up the street. I continued to talk to dispatch, while watching the man at the screen door.
I saw the police car zoom right past the property next door, while still watching the male in the process of removing the screen door. When he finally was able to remove it, he walked back out the driveway to the street, walked up the street, in front on my property, and started to cut across the empty lot on the other side of the house next door. I was still on the phone and heard the big, growly engine of the green pick-up start, so told the dispatcher, and then continued to narrate the male coming back down the street in front of my house, and up the driveway next door. The big green pick-up showed up, backed in, the screen door was loaded into the bed of the pick-up, and it drove off.
The dispatcher thanked me for doing my civic duty, and told me to call back if I noticed anything further. Which I did, about 5 minutes' later, when the green pick-up came back and the male passenger removed the screen door from the bed of the pick-up, dropped it into the front yard, got back into the pick-up, and left the scene. The dispatcher told me that the police officer, who had stopped the green pick-up after it left the property the second time, directed the male occupants to return the metal screen door removed from the property next door.
"That's it?" I asked.
"That's it," she answered. But she assured me I can call back if I notice anything suspicious.
No, I'm not going to do that. I stood in my kitchen, describing the male removing the screen door, watching him come and go, and the police officer, rather than coming onto the property and catching a burglar in the act of breaking (but not entering ... yet), told him that a neighbor had seen him remove the door, so he had to return it????
What was I thinking??
Did I really want to set myself up for the two men to return, this time to MY property, and thank me in person for doing my civic duty?? Believe me, I'll keep an ear open for the sound of that pick-up truck tonight, but if they're breaking into the apartment next door (made much easier by this afternoon's removal of the security screen door), I'll mind my own business!!
A couple of nights later, at midnight, I heard what sounded like someone trying to kick in a door, but could not tell where the sound originated, so went back to sleep.
Today, the dogs let me know that someone was next door, so I looked out the kitchen window and saw a medium tall, somewhat chunky, apparently Hispanic male, dressed in the uniform of black knee-length shorts, running shoes, and a hoodie, walk to the first-floor apartment and pull on the screen door. Thinking the behavior suspicious, especially coming after last weekend's event, I called the local police -- who, of course, could not do anything because the man left the property, got back into the big green pick-up, and left.
About 10 minutes later, I again heard the same engine sound, looked out to see the same big green pick-up, and watched the same male dressed in the same uniform go directly to the metal screen door of the apartment at the end of the driveway, and begin to remove it. I again called the police, explained that a male was removing the metal screen door, but that the big green pick-up had driven up the street. I continued to talk to dispatch, while watching the man at the screen door.
I saw the police car zoom right past the property next door, while still watching the male in the process of removing the screen door. When he finally was able to remove it, he walked back out the driveway to the street, walked up the street, in front on my property, and started to cut across the empty lot on the other side of the house next door. I was still on the phone and heard the big, growly engine of the green pick-up start, so told the dispatcher, and then continued to narrate the male coming back down the street in front of my house, and up the driveway next door. The big green pick-up showed up, backed in, the screen door was loaded into the bed of the pick-up, and it drove off.
The dispatcher thanked me for doing my civic duty, and told me to call back if I noticed anything further. Which I did, about 5 minutes' later, when the green pick-up came back and the male passenger removed the screen door from the bed of the pick-up, dropped it into the front yard, got back into the pick-up, and left the scene. The dispatcher told me that the police officer, who had stopped the green pick-up after it left the property the second time, directed the male occupants to return the metal screen door removed from the property next door.
"That's it?" I asked.
"That's it," she answered. But she assured me I can call back if I notice anything suspicious.
No, I'm not going to do that. I stood in my kitchen, describing the male removing the screen door, watching him come and go, and the police officer, rather than coming onto the property and catching a burglar in the act of breaking (but not entering ... yet), told him that a neighbor had seen him remove the door, so he had to return it????
What was I thinking??
Did I really want to set myself up for the two men to return, this time to MY property, and thank me in person for doing my civic duty?? Believe me, I'll keep an ear open for the sound of that pick-up truck tonight, but if they're breaking into the apartment next door (made much easier by this afternoon's removal of the security screen door), I'll mind my own business!!
Friday, January 21, 2011
Dramatic End to the Week
This has been a long week as my back, which had been coming along nicely, decided to "freeze" again, making it impossible to sit/stand/recline and/or walk. I gulped Aleve and surrounded my back/hips with ice, but time seems to stand still when it's impossible to wait for the pain to subside. PT helped, but not much at the time I needed it to work really, really well.
Then, before going to teach my first class Wed, I took a photo to the hairdresser, showed it to her, explained that I have been growing my hair out so I could have it styled "just like this photo." I made sure she knew that I did NOT want my hair cut, but reshaped, but walked out looking as if I have attacked my hair with the manicure scissors ... again. I don't like bunches of hair covering my ears, preferring to have hair that is shaped to accentuate the shape of the sides of my head, rather than approximating Bozo the Clown's profile. I wanted my hair to stay the length it was when I arrived, not be chopped off all over my head. I held up the photo when we were finished and asked if she really thought there was any resemblance between what I asked for and what she did, but that did not go well. At all. Again.
Yes, it's just hair and it will grow back, but I really HATE having to go through the growing it out every single time I trust someone to trim my hair and/or make a style I really want to wear -- but they seem unable to achieve. If I had wanted to look like I do, I would have used the manicure scissors and saved myself the $30 and the aggravation.
Last night, B came over to take some measurements for upcoming home improvement projects. As he was playing with Daisy, Mia sauntered over, Daisy growled, and Mia went beserk. She grabbed Daisy by the neck, growling ferociously, and began shaking her like a dust rag. I thought she was going to bite Daisy's head off before I could grab her choke collar, choke her, and get her to drop Daisy, who ran for the safety of anywhere else. I locked Mia in the garage, then went to find Daisy, who was way outside in the dog run, scared to death and shaking like a leaf.
Mia only got skin and hair, so there was very little bleeding, and when I let Mia back into the house about an hour after the incident, the dogs were rubbing noses and licking each other, so whatever set Mia off was gone. However, this morning I took Daisy to b'fast, just in case, and left her in the car while I socialized with my friends. I brought Daisy a piece of chicken fried steak, which she pounced on and devoured before returning home.
At PT, my therapist was able to work out my back/hip issues, so today has been a good day. I've watched what dvr'd this past week and did some knitting, while Daisy has been curled up in my lap. I'm sure she's sore from the shaking, as well as the ferocity of the attack, but she and Mia are getting along fine today, even sharing a patch of sunshine on the patio this afternoon.
Finally, my friend's niece died very suddenly during the night from sepsis. She hadn't felt well early in the week, took a rapid turn for the worst yesterday and was taken to the ER via ambulance, but the doctors could not save her. M is on her way home to comfort her mother and her brother, as well as all the other family and friends who have to deal with the loss of this young woman much too soon and much too suddenly.
One day at a time, dear Lord. One day at a time.
Then, before going to teach my first class Wed, I took a photo to the hairdresser, showed it to her, explained that I have been growing my hair out so I could have it styled "just like this photo." I made sure she knew that I did NOT want my hair cut, but reshaped, but walked out looking as if I have attacked my hair with the manicure scissors ... again. I don't like bunches of hair covering my ears, preferring to have hair that is shaped to accentuate the shape of the sides of my head, rather than approximating Bozo the Clown's profile. I wanted my hair to stay the length it was when I arrived, not be chopped off all over my head. I held up the photo when we were finished and asked if she really thought there was any resemblance between what I asked for and what she did, but that did not go well. At all. Again.
Yes, it's just hair and it will grow back, but I really HATE having to go through the growing it out every single time I trust someone to trim my hair and/or make a style I really want to wear -- but they seem unable to achieve. If I had wanted to look like I do, I would have used the manicure scissors and saved myself the $30 and the aggravation.
Last night, B came over to take some measurements for upcoming home improvement projects. As he was playing with Daisy, Mia sauntered over, Daisy growled, and Mia went beserk. She grabbed Daisy by the neck, growling ferociously, and began shaking her like a dust rag. I thought she was going to bite Daisy's head off before I could grab her choke collar, choke her, and get her to drop Daisy, who ran for the safety of anywhere else. I locked Mia in the garage, then went to find Daisy, who was way outside in the dog run, scared to death and shaking like a leaf.
Mia only got skin and hair, so there was very little bleeding, and when I let Mia back into the house about an hour after the incident, the dogs were rubbing noses and licking each other, so whatever set Mia off was gone. However, this morning I took Daisy to b'fast, just in case, and left her in the car while I socialized with my friends. I brought Daisy a piece of chicken fried steak, which she pounced on and devoured before returning home.
At PT, my therapist was able to work out my back/hip issues, so today has been a good day. I've watched what dvr'd this past week and did some knitting, while Daisy has been curled up in my lap. I'm sure she's sore from the shaking, as well as the ferocity of the attack, but she and Mia are getting along fine today, even sharing a patch of sunshine on the patio this afternoon.
Finally, my friend's niece died very suddenly during the night from sepsis. She hadn't felt well early in the week, took a rapid turn for the worst yesterday and was taken to the ER via ambulance, but the doctors could not save her. M is on her way home to comfort her mother and her brother, as well as all the other family and friends who have to deal with the loss of this young woman much too soon and much too suddenly.
One day at a time, dear Lord. One day at a time.
Crime and No Punishment?
Long story short: the local cops set up a sex sting at a known gay motel/park area. The cops pretend to be gay and arrest 19 offenders committing sex acts in public. However, the police chief, who was in on the sting, evidently made an inappropriate comment, so the incident has now become an example of this community's intolerance of gays and their rights.
New DA in office; in the spirit of whatever, he offers a plea deal. If the 19 plead guilty, they will not have to register as sex offenders. Here's today's headline:
Deal rejected in Warm Sands case
Defense attorneys for 15 of 19 men arrested in connection with a 2009 Warm Sands public sex sting rejected a plea agreement offered by the Riverside County District Attorney's Office on Thursday.
The media coverage has centered on the alleged slur made by the police chief, with the fact that 19 men were actively engaging in sexual acts in public and/or indecently exposing themselves in public over-looked. If this group of sexual offenders walk away from their criminal conduct because our community is known for its significant population of GLTBs and wants their money to keep the city afloat, won't everyone else who is ever arrested for any kind of public sexual conduct and/or exposure also be able to walk away from their crimes?
I'm thinking the old sauce for the goose and the gander: gay or straight, the rules need to be the same for anyone committing a sexual act in public.
I don't understand why what the 19 gay men were doing has been lost in the alleged slur made by the police chief. He apologized, but finally resigned recently, which set off another fire storm: he should have been fired, not given a retirement package and benefits, according to the GLTB community. The protest from the GLTBs is that the slur made by the police chief is more egregious than their public sexual activity, and that position seems to be supported by the letters to the editor that basically posit that "everyone knows" this specific neighborhood is predominantly gay, so if they aren't hurting anyone, why target them?
Believe me, this makes no sense to me on any level, but it sure supports the theory that we don't have to worry about the enemy without as much as the enemy within our own communities!! We don't focus on a public official in Tucson ranting and raving about what conservative rhetoric has done to this country, including leading a deranged young man to commit murder, even if that accusation is NOT supported by the facts of the incident, but feel free to Palinize anyone who uses any word/phrase that could possibly be construed to mean involving a weapon, such as hitting the target with monthly sales, dodging a bullet by making a quota, punching up an ad campaign, or discussing the target demographic for political campaigns??
If we don't stand together for what is right and decent, we'll fall for anything that takes the focus off what's really important.
New DA in office; in the spirit of whatever, he offers a plea deal. If the 19 plead guilty, they will not have to register as sex offenders. Here's today's headline:
Deal rejected in Warm Sands case
Defense attorneys for 15 of 19 men arrested in connection with a 2009 Warm Sands public sex sting rejected a plea agreement offered by the Riverside County District Attorney's Office on Thursday.
The media coverage has centered on the alleged slur made by the police chief, with the fact that 19 men were actively engaging in sexual acts in public and/or indecently exposing themselves in public over-looked. If this group of sexual offenders walk away from their criminal conduct because our community is known for its significant population of GLTBs and wants their money to keep the city afloat, won't everyone else who is ever arrested for any kind of public sexual conduct and/or exposure also be able to walk away from their crimes?
I'm thinking the old sauce for the goose and the gander: gay or straight, the rules need to be the same for anyone committing a sexual act in public.
I don't understand why what the 19 gay men were doing has been lost in the alleged slur made by the police chief. He apologized, but finally resigned recently, which set off another fire storm: he should have been fired, not given a retirement package and benefits, according to the GLTB community. The protest from the GLTBs is that the slur made by the police chief is more egregious than their public sexual activity, and that position seems to be supported by the letters to the editor that basically posit that "everyone knows" this specific neighborhood is predominantly gay, so if they aren't hurting anyone, why target them?
Believe me, this makes no sense to me on any level, but it sure supports the theory that we don't have to worry about the enemy without as much as the enemy within our own communities!! We don't focus on a public official in Tucson ranting and raving about what conservative rhetoric has done to this country, including leading a deranged young man to commit murder, even if that accusation is NOT supported by the facts of the incident, but feel free to Palinize anyone who uses any word/phrase that could possibly be construed to mean involving a weapon, such as hitting the target with monthly sales, dodging a bullet by making a quota, punching up an ad campaign, or discussing the target demographic for political campaigns??
If we don't stand together for what is right and decent, we'll fall for anything that takes the focus off what's really important.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
In the REAL World ...
This last weekend, I enjoyed a concrete example of the real world when the 5 finalists for Next Great Baker were told by Buddy that he's ashamed of the lack of quality in their work. The premise of the show is that a dozen bakers began the competition for a full-time spot in the bakery, as well as other prizes. The problems began with the first episode, when it became obvious that if this is the best the country has to offer, we're in sad shape in the bakery business! The finished products were (being kind) amateurish, unpolished, and unprofessional. If I had ordered any of the products during the many weeks of the show presented by some of the winners of the on-going competition, I would have asked for a full refund.
Really: that bad.
Buddy laid it on the line for the 5 finalists: their best work was an embarrassment to Buddy and the reputation of his business. I agree. None of the cars resembled the Chevrolet Cruze, and one of the finished cars looked like a lump of cake air-brushed silver, with wheels that literally fell off, plopped on top of a much-too-small, butt-ugly layer cake that had red/blue fondant streamers falling off the sides. One of the bakers, directed to make a cake for the client, used rice cereal treats for the car and styrofoam for his "cake." Another one of the contestants, one who made it to the finals, only made the rear end of the car!! In her presentation, it appeared that the vehicle was at the point of impact in a head-on collision, and I'm doubtful that is the image Chevy wants the consumer to have of its product line.
When Buddy offered the bakers the chance to redeem themselves with their "best" bakery product to off-set their awful cakes, believe it or not, he was handed burned Snickerdoodle cookies and everyday chocolate chip cookies! When I go to a bakery and ask for the best the pastry chef can do, I don't want either Snickerdoodle or chocolate chip cookies: I can bake those in my own kitchen. I want something over the top, incredible both in appearance and taste, something that I could never make for myself. If I screw up Snickerdoodles or bake everyday chocolate chip cookies, what am I doing in the Next Great Baker competition???
We want the best the pastry chef has to offer, not burned basic cookies!
Buddy wants the Next Great Baker, not a counter-worker in a hardware store who wants to learn how to become a baker because it looks like so much fun! Buddy needs someone who can become an integral part of an existing business, not a person who has limited skills and/or experience, but tries really hard. Believe me, if you could have seen those final presentations to the client, you would NEVER hire any of the final five bakers to make even a child's birthday cake! Buddy put his reputation on the line with a client, and a really poorly baked and decorated cake cannot be passed off to anyone as anything other than failure.
In the real world, no one cares how hard a worker tries if s/he fails to complete the task in an acceptable manner. Donald says, "you're fired"; Buddy puts it, "get in the box truck." No excuses; no explanations; no apologies: either do the job or don't do it, but if you fail to perform -- you've failed. It's time to move on.
Your assignment: make the connection to my world: the classroom.
Really: that bad.
Buddy laid it on the line for the 5 finalists: their best work was an embarrassment to Buddy and the reputation of his business. I agree. None of the cars resembled the Chevrolet Cruze, and one of the finished cars looked like a lump of cake air-brushed silver, with wheels that literally fell off, plopped on top of a much-too-small, butt-ugly layer cake that had red/blue fondant streamers falling off the sides. One of the bakers, directed to make a cake for the client, used rice cereal treats for the car and styrofoam for his "cake." Another one of the contestants, one who made it to the finals, only made the rear end of the car!! In her presentation, it appeared that the vehicle was at the point of impact in a head-on collision, and I'm doubtful that is the image Chevy wants the consumer to have of its product line.
When Buddy offered the bakers the chance to redeem themselves with their "best" bakery product to off-set their awful cakes, believe it or not, he was handed burned Snickerdoodle cookies and everyday chocolate chip cookies! When I go to a bakery and ask for the best the pastry chef can do, I don't want either Snickerdoodle or chocolate chip cookies: I can bake those in my own kitchen. I want something over the top, incredible both in appearance and taste, something that I could never make for myself. If I screw up Snickerdoodles or bake everyday chocolate chip cookies, what am I doing in the Next Great Baker competition???
We want the best the pastry chef has to offer, not burned basic cookies!
Buddy wants the Next Great Baker, not a counter-worker in a hardware store who wants to learn how to become a baker because it looks like so much fun! Buddy needs someone who can become an integral part of an existing business, not a person who has limited skills and/or experience, but tries really hard. Believe me, if you could have seen those final presentations to the client, you would NEVER hire any of the final five bakers to make even a child's birthday cake! Buddy put his reputation on the line with a client, and a really poorly baked and decorated cake cannot be passed off to anyone as anything other than failure.
In the real world, no one cares how hard a worker tries if s/he fails to complete the task in an acceptable manner. Donald says, "you're fired"; Buddy puts it, "get in the box truck." No excuses; no explanations; no apologies: either do the job or don't do it, but if you fail to perform -- you've failed. It's time to move on.
Your assignment: make the connection to my world: the classroom.
Monday, January 17, 2011
The Cost of Doing Business
I bought new glasses late in June last year and was absolutely floored at how much they cost, which was attributed by the sales staffer to the lens options and my prescription. I put the $600 on a credit card, but paid $187 in cash for the exam. I figured after paying so much for a pair of glasses, I should be able to drive over them with my truck, pick them up, put them back on, and they'd be fine.
Or not.
Five separate times the glasses have literally fallen apart. Three times, including today, I took them back to the provider and they were put back together; the other times included once in the mall at Thanksgiving and this past weekend at Sam's Club, which has an optical shop. When I asked the technician at Sam's why these darned glasses keep falling apart, he quizzed me about where I purchased them and how much I paid, then laughed. He assured me that one, he could not repair the glasses, although he was able to put them back together, and, two, he could make me better glasses for $350 if I could get a copy of the prescription and bring it back to him.
Today, after PT, I drove to the local optician, complained that the glasses keep falling apart, and said I want to replace them since I paid a small fortune 6 months ago and am highly dissatisfied. My contention is that it's a faulty product and should be replaced -- and then they deal with the company who's providing a substandard product. The nose pieces go through the lense, but instead of a fastener on the end of that piece to hold it in place, a soft plastic flange is put onto the wire, then that combination is pushed through the hole in the lense. The assumption is that forcing the plastic-covered wire will keep it tight, but assuming anything doesn't mean it's going to work the way someone says it should. I was polite, but firm, but no deal: I can continue to return to that retail space (Desert Vision) and they will service the glasses, but I bought them and I'm stuck with them.
Nice touch, huh? I asked sweetly for a copy of my prescription before I left. While they may be unwilling to accommodate my complaint and help me into a new pair of glasses, I am more than willing to tell everyone I know that Desert Vision does not stand behind the products they sell.
I am getting a better quality lense, with all the same options I have on the current pair, and a new frame for $332.00 at Sam's Club. The technician also assured me that if I ever have a problem with the glasses, he'll either repair them or replace them: no questions asked. Yes, I'm getting a different frame style, one that has frame all around the lens, rather than rimless, but I also am getting the spring-style temple pieces which give when Daisy leaps up onto the couch and starts licking my face, skewing my glasses in the process.
If a business wants to keep its doors open, the personnel need to stand behind their products. They knew I'd come back for the 3rd time as the same male employee handled my issue each time. They checked my patient record, so they also knew when I bought the glasses and how much I paid for them. Granted, I did not purchase one of their top-of-the-line designer frames, but in my world, I paid a pretty penny for a very simple pair of functional glasses that have fallen apart five times in about as many months.
How much better to make each customer a satisfied customer than it is to piss anyone off and send them out the door to share their experience with everyone they encounter. And, more importantly, send them out the door of a locally-owned business (Desert Vision) to purchase a product from one of the big box/chain stores. The advertising mantra here is "Keep it local," but that option ups the cost of doing business for me beyond my means to continue shopping locally.
Or not.
Five separate times the glasses have literally fallen apart. Three times, including today, I took them back to the provider and they were put back together; the other times included once in the mall at Thanksgiving and this past weekend at Sam's Club, which has an optical shop. When I asked the technician at Sam's why these darned glasses keep falling apart, he quizzed me about where I purchased them and how much I paid, then laughed. He assured me that one, he could not repair the glasses, although he was able to put them back together, and, two, he could make me better glasses for $350 if I could get a copy of the prescription and bring it back to him.
Today, after PT, I drove to the local optician, complained that the glasses keep falling apart, and said I want to replace them since I paid a small fortune 6 months ago and am highly dissatisfied. My contention is that it's a faulty product and should be replaced -- and then they deal with the company who's providing a substandard product. The nose pieces go through the lense, but instead of a fastener on the end of that piece to hold it in place, a soft plastic flange is put onto the wire, then that combination is pushed through the hole in the lense. The assumption is that forcing the plastic-covered wire will keep it tight, but assuming anything doesn't mean it's going to work the way someone says it should. I was polite, but firm, but no deal: I can continue to return to that retail space (Desert Vision) and they will service the glasses, but I bought them and I'm stuck with them.
Nice touch, huh? I asked sweetly for a copy of my prescription before I left. While they may be unwilling to accommodate my complaint and help me into a new pair of glasses, I am more than willing to tell everyone I know that Desert Vision does not stand behind the products they sell.
I am getting a better quality lense, with all the same options I have on the current pair, and a new frame for $332.00 at Sam's Club. The technician also assured me that if I ever have a problem with the glasses, he'll either repair them or replace them: no questions asked. Yes, I'm getting a different frame style, one that has frame all around the lens, rather than rimless, but I also am getting the spring-style temple pieces which give when Daisy leaps up onto the couch and starts licking my face, skewing my glasses in the process.
If a business wants to keep its doors open, the personnel need to stand behind their products. They knew I'd come back for the 3rd time as the same male employee handled my issue each time. They checked my patient record, so they also knew when I bought the glasses and how much I paid for them. Granted, I did not purchase one of their top-of-the-line designer frames, but in my world, I paid a pretty penny for a very simple pair of functional glasses that have fallen apart five times in about as many months.
How much better to make each customer a satisfied customer than it is to piss anyone off and send them out the door to share their experience with everyone they encounter. And, more importantly, send them out the door of a locally-owned business (Desert Vision) to purchase a product from one of the big box/chain stores. The advertising mantra here is "Keep it local," but that option ups the cost of doing business for me beyond my means to continue shopping locally.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Paint Hazard
Perhaps it's not a big deal, but I've noticed in the past several football weekends that the logos that used to be confined to the area directly under the goal posts and/or the far sides of the end zone have both enlarged significantly and crept onto the field in various configurations. I've also noticed that players on the field lose their footing in the paint!
Yesterday, it cost a team an incomplete pass as the receiver's feet went out from under him, and he literally slid across the painted mascot in the middle of the field. I've seen players slide in the end zone, unable to remain on their feet and score a touchdown. I've seen quarterbacks unable to establish position for a pass because their feet were not firmly anchored in the middle of the field during a play.
What I don't understand is twofold: (1) why all the painting on the field of play and (2) why doesn't anyone on the field/sidelines protest? If I were either a player or a coach, I'd want this paint hazard removed from the field of play. There are already far too many ways for a player to be injured or fumble a play without having to worry about slipping on field paint.
Yesterday, it cost a team an incomplete pass as the receiver's feet went out from under him, and he literally slid across the painted mascot in the middle of the field. I've seen players slide in the end zone, unable to remain on their feet and score a touchdown. I've seen quarterbacks unable to establish position for a pass because their feet were not firmly anchored in the middle of the field during a play.
What I don't understand is twofold: (1) why all the painting on the field of play and (2) why doesn't anyone on the field/sidelines protest? If I were either a player or a coach, I'd want this paint hazard removed from the field of play. There are already far too many ways for a player to be injured or fumble a play without having to worry about slipping on field paint.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Stretching
This is the second week I've been attending physical therapy and I'm pleased with the progress. Part of my physical issue is the extreme pain and misalignment in my lower back and hips, especially after my fall the week prior to the knee surgery. I have arthritis from head to toe, but it was exacerbated in my lower back/hips by the failure to treat the medical issues in my knee by the physicians from whom I sought help. After a year of limping and trying every way I knew not to put my right foot on the ground, my body reacted by realigning itself to cope with the injuries.
For 2 weeks, my therapist has concentrated on stretching and realigning my back, both of which are in the category of "good hurt." The stretching of my legs is necessary because the muscles have contracted over the past year, but the result of the PT is spasms, especially the "charlie horses" in my feet and toes that come in the night while my body is relaxing. They are lessening, so I am confident that at the end of the next 2 weeks, the charlies horses will be minimal, if not gone altogether.
Realigning my hips and spine takes tremendous pressure by the therapist as he manipulates my vertebrae. We begin this phase with my face in a pillow; with the therapist's hands firmly pressed in the middle of my spine, I lift my upper body while keeping my lower body against the mat. At first, I could barely move, but yesterday I was able to really lift my upper body, and it felt so good! He worked from the lowest lumbar to the cervical yesterday and, for the first time in months, my lower back/hips allowed me to move freely through the rest of the day.
There is still a lot of pain at the surgery site in my knee, as well as bruising, which I do not remember from previous knee surgeries. Some days I have to take a pain pill, but I've tried to stay away from them because they fog my brain and give me horrendous nightmares. I'm still walking the dogs each day, varying the distance and the route to challenge myself. We are up to a full half-hour of walking, but do not do that every day ... yet.
My empathy for those who deal with ongoing injuries/pain has increased in the past few months as I have accommodated my lifestyle to my physical limitations. I am fortunate that it's only one knee and associated back/hip issues, while so many other people have so much more to handle. I may have 2 additional surgeries in my future, but the prognosis is complete recovery. For me, it's one day at a time, with a definite goal of overcoming this circumstance; for others, it's one day at a time, with no optimism at the end of the day. Believe me, I know how fortunate I am.
For 2 weeks, my therapist has concentrated on stretching and realigning my back, both of which are in the category of "good hurt." The stretching of my legs is necessary because the muscles have contracted over the past year, but the result of the PT is spasms, especially the "charlie horses" in my feet and toes that come in the night while my body is relaxing. They are lessening, so I am confident that at the end of the next 2 weeks, the charlies horses will be minimal, if not gone altogether.
Realigning my hips and spine takes tremendous pressure by the therapist as he manipulates my vertebrae. We begin this phase with my face in a pillow; with the therapist's hands firmly pressed in the middle of my spine, I lift my upper body while keeping my lower body against the mat. At first, I could barely move, but yesterday I was able to really lift my upper body, and it felt so good! He worked from the lowest lumbar to the cervical yesterday and, for the first time in months, my lower back/hips allowed me to move freely through the rest of the day.
There is still a lot of pain at the surgery site in my knee, as well as bruising, which I do not remember from previous knee surgeries. Some days I have to take a pain pill, but I've tried to stay away from them because they fog my brain and give me horrendous nightmares. I'm still walking the dogs each day, varying the distance and the route to challenge myself. We are up to a full half-hour of walking, but do not do that every day ... yet.
My empathy for those who deal with ongoing injuries/pain has increased in the past few months as I have accommodated my lifestyle to my physical limitations. I am fortunate that it's only one knee and associated back/hip issues, while so many other people have so much more to handle. I may have 2 additional surgeries in my future, but the prognosis is complete recovery. For me, it's one day at a time, with a definite goal of overcoming this circumstance; for others, it's one day at a time, with no optimism at the end of the day. Believe me, I know how fortunate I am.
Modernizing My Life
Taking a step into the 21st Century, I am doing more of the routine aspects of my life on-line. I'm not sure how much I trust the security of conducting business on-line, but it seems to be a more functional, efficient way to complete some tasks, such as shopping for items that usually require several hours of time, as well as traveling distances, to accomplish. It also speeds up my postal services and saves me time standing online at the local PO.
The post office offers the option to pay for postage on-line, which may not seem like such a big deal, but it is when standing online at the PO would take more time than the end result is worth. During tough economic times, I do not understand why the PO continues to use floor space and budget for the "gift store" in each of our local offices. How much better to use that space for a "stamps only" line or "money orders" line to get the people with small purchases out of the main line. Stamps only people move along quickly, while money order purchases can take at least a full 15 minutes each to transact, although I'll admit that I have no idea why it takes that long.
Ditto sending packages: for those of us who package well, label correctly, and have money in hand, it's not such a big deal. However, for the customer who needs tape, doesn't have a proper address label, has no idea if the address/zip code is correct, etc etc etc, the line has to wait forever to complete the transaction. Because our 3-window post office usually has 1 or 2 employees at the counter to deal with customers, the line can literally wind through the lobby, especially on the high volume days, but far too frequently just because there is one post office to service a community that has doubled in size in the 10 years I've lived in it.
Postal employees know what takes time and what can be expedited with simple reorganization of the service area. My best guess is that most people realize that the gift store is not a paying proposition and can be eliminated. If a person shows up and needs to purchase packing supplies, both a Wal-Greens and a K-Mart are at the other end of the block. If the customer is directed to purchase packaging supplies before returning for the mailing process, it wouldn't take too many trips for a customer to realize that s/he needs to prep the package before bringing it to the post office.
We all are cost-cutting and streamlining our personal business, but federal businesses don't seem in a hurry to do the same. As a matter of fact, the cost of postage is going up again, which is another reason that I'm transitioning to using the technology where it is practical in my own life.
The post office offers the option to pay for postage on-line, which may not seem like such a big deal, but it is when standing online at the PO would take more time than the end result is worth. During tough economic times, I do not understand why the PO continues to use floor space and budget for the "gift store" in each of our local offices. How much better to use that space for a "stamps only" line or "money orders" line to get the people with small purchases out of the main line. Stamps only people move along quickly, while money order purchases can take at least a full 15 minutes each to transact, although I'll admit that I have no idea why it takes that long.
Ditto sending packages: for those of us who package well, label correctly, and have money in hand, it's not such a big deal. However, for the customer who needs tape, doesn't have a proper address label, has no idea if the address/zip code is correct, etc etc etc, the line has to wait forever to complete the transaction. Because our 3-window post office usually has 1 or 2 employees at the counter to deal with customers, the line can literally wind through the lobby, especially on the high volume days, but far too frequently just because there is one post office to service a community that has doubled in size in the 10 years I've lived in it.
Postal employees know what takes time and what can be expedited with simple reorganization of the service area. My best guess is that most people realize that the gift store is not a paying proposition and can be eliminated. If a person shows up and needs to purchase packing supplies, both a Wal-Greens and a K-Mart are at the other end of the block. If the customer is directed to purchase packaging supplies before returning for the mailing process, it wouldn't take too many trips for a customer to realize that s/he needs to prep the package before bringing it to the post office.
We all are cost-cutting and streamlining our personal business, but federal businesses don't seem in a hurry to do the same. As a matter of fact, the cost of postage is going up again, which is another reason that I'm transitioning to using the technology where it is practical in my own life.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Presidential ... at Last
Thank you, Mr. President, for your emotional elegance at the Tucson Memorial Service. The families, the community, and the nation needed your compassion tonight, especially the challenge for all of us to live up to the hopes and expectations of our children. Congratulations for staying on-message about the tragedy and the many lives affected by one person's actions, rather than making this a political issue.
We don't have to become jaded and work so hard to blame "them" for our disappointment with ourselves. We can accept that sometimes things happen outside our narrow sphere of influence because there is evil in the world that is neither republican nor democrat.
We can continue to dare to dream that today will be more compassionate, rather than confrontational, more like last night's memorial service than the tirade of the Pima County Sheriff last Saturday.
We don't have to become jaded and work so hard to blame "them" for our disappointment with ourselves. We can accept that sometimes things happen outside our narrow sphere of influence because there is evil in the world that is neither republican nor democrat.
We can continue to dare to dream that today will be more compassionate, rather than confrontational, more like last night's memorial service than the tirade of the Pima County Sheriff last Saturday.
One Step at a Time
Gov Brown is doing it differently his second time around, a democrat (spender) making what may appear to be republican (saver) changes. While others are still talking the talk, Jerry's walking the walk. The first step may seem small to others, but it's a huge step in the right direction for anyone whose goal is to keep a campaign promise to cut spending.
He's taking away the cell phones; hopefully, he's taking them away from the desk jockies, not the employees in the field. Again, doesn't seem like much, but if there are 96,000 cell phones currently in use at a mere $50 per phone per month, that's a boatload of money in an annual budget. In my world, the next step is the company car, again, taking this perk away from the desk jockies, not from the workers in the field. A third step is the copy/fax machine and the annual forests of associated paper and toner!! Far too many employees use the company equipment and supplies as a perk of their job, including the copy/fax machine (and the "free" paper). The rest of the world has to pay Kinko per page for personal copying and faxes, so why look the other way when government employees use state equipment for personal business?
I continue making changes in my lifestyle to accommodate my current income, changes that may seem small at the time, but add up to effective cost-cutting. I'm not denying myself, just redefining my spending habits, and the government needs to follow suit. Whether it's in one's home or in one's business, spending money that is not there can only lead to financial collapse. It's the little things that "nickel and dime" us into deficit spending and financial instability, but which can also turn out-of-control spending into effective cost-cutting when waste is targeted, rather than accepted as part of the cost of doing business.
I was not thrilled with the choices for office in the past election, and I was here for Jerry's (Moonbeam) first time around the block, but tough times demand tough measures by tough people -- and Jerry's tough. He's a career politician, so he has the contacts to wrangle concessions when that's what the public needs to see. I hope taking away the cell phones is but a first step, rather than one of those high PR value impact actions that so many politicians rely on to define their entire term in office.
Okay, Jerry: go after the cars and the copy/fax machines and forests of paper products. Once you get this ball rolling, it'll be easier to keep weeding out the waste.
He's taking away the cell phones; hopefully, he's taking them away from the desk jockies, not the employees in the field. Again, doesn't seem like much, but if there are 96,000 cell phones currently in use at a mere $50 per phone per month, that's a boatload of money in an annual budget. In my world, the next step is the company car, again, taking this perk away from the desk jockies, not from the workers in the field. A third step is the copy/fax machine and the annual forests of associated paper and toner!! Far too many employees use the company equipment and supplies as a perk of their job, including the copy/fax machine (and the "free" paper). The rest of the world has to pay Kinko per page for personal copying and faxes, so why look the other way when government employees use state equipment for personal business?
I continue making changes in my lifestyle to accommodate my current income, changes that may seem small at the time, but add up to effective cost-cutting. I'm not denying myself, just redefining my spending habits, and the government needs to follow suit. Whether it's in one's home or in one's business, spending money that is not there can only lead to financial collapse. It's the little things that "nickel and dime" us into deficit spending and financial instability, but which can also turn out-of-control spending into effective cost-cutting when waste is targeted, rather than accepted as part of the cost of doing business.
I was not thrilled with the choices for office in the past election, and I was here for Jerry's (Moonbeam) first time around the block, but tough times demand tough measures by tough people -- and Jerry's tough. He's a career politician, so he has the contacts to wrangle concessions when that's what the public needs to see. I hope taking away the cell phones is but a first step, rather than one of those high PR value impact actions that so many politicians rely on to define their entire term in office.
Okay, Jerry: go after the cars and the copy/fax machines and forests of paper products. Once you get this ball rolling, it'll be easier to keep weeding out the waste.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Time Provides Perspective
The verbal attacks based on the alleged causes for the Terror in Tucson were strong and harsh, but not based in fact or reality. It was almost as if "the other side" saw the PR advantage to the old adage that the best defense is a strong offense; however, that tactic was more offensive than offense, and both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of rising to the verbal bait.
In the online newspaper this morning, a blogger loses it: this entire situation is a result of the attacks of the right wing on the left. If Sarah Palin had not ... . At the end of his tirade, the blogger cautions the reader to be careful what you say and how you say it, apparently oblivious to his own incautious use of vitriol to explain how damaging vitriol can be, especially in a political environment. I'm pretty sure that the reason the Director of the FBI flew directly to Tucson was to be the public face of the investigation: the local sheriff did no one any favors by his very public, very emotional, and very, very incorrect characterization of this mass murder as a direct result of political rhetoric and racism, in his mind equating the struggle to secure the borders with the Safeway Shooting. The sheriff compromised the future court case by reacting more from his personal involvement in both the local politics and the people who are the victims of this tragedy than as a sworn law enforcement official.
The absolute horror of incorrectly announcing the death of one shooting victim, as well as the consistent use of the past tense in describing her close personal relationship to so many people whose faces appeared on the TV screen, created confusion that simply did not have to be transmitted to the world in a rush to be the first on-camera with what was assumed to be the up-to-the-minute truth. Being the first on-scene far too often leads to be the most wrong, rather than the TV network with the best reporting. Once those words go out, there is no taking them back. Deaths were reported of living persons; an accomplice was tarred and feathered when there was no accomplice; a murderer was motivated by political rhetoric when it now seems more likely he is a victim of his own paranoid schitzophrenia.
Witnesses stepped in front of the camera in ill-advised media appearances, including a community college teacher and a student who claim to be well-aware of the danger this criminal posed to himself and others -- putting themselves into not just the chain of evidence, but in the line to be sued! A former grade-school classmate of the shooter came forward to share her close friendship with him, although she had not seen him since 8th grade and her close personal relationship was based on them both being in the band. We have been shocked by the link to Hollywood celebrities, including a distant second-cousin relationship with Gwynneth Paltrow, who has never met Gabrielle Griffiths! When the parents of the shooter had the audacity not just to refuse to be interviewed, but barracaded themselves behind plywood to avoid being filmed during this difficult time, the media took it as a personal affront.
And the absolute gall of the shooter not to utter one word: how dare he invoke his rights when the world wants to know everything there is to know about him, his family, his mental illness, his motivation, his proficiency with the handgun ... there is no end to what the world wants to know!!
This is what has to stop: the rush to judgment. Whatever happened to the "no comment" so prevalent in our past? Loose lips sink a ship, but tight lips protect the evidence until it is presented in a court of law. The world may want to know, but we really have no "right" to know until we know what really happened, who is involved, and what this means now that we've figured it out.
I don't want to see my right to voice my opinion compromised by the media's intrusiveness into crime scenes, or the local sheriff's rush to personal judgment, nor by anyone calling me out for speaking my mind simply because I do not agree with their point of view. Sometimes, a good argument helps the participants and the observers clarify their thinking, but everyone needs to focus on the fact that we can accept that others may have a different perspective and/or point of view, without having to agree with them -- or harming them.
What is it the coaches say? "Leave it on the field, gentlemen. Leave it on the field."
In the online newspaper this morning, a blogger loses it: this entire situation is a result of the attacks of the right wing on the left. If Sarah Palin had not ... . At the end of his tirade, the blogger cautions the reader to be careful what you say and how you say it, apparently oblivious to his own incautious use of vitriol to explain how damaging vitriol can be, especially in a political environment. I'm pretty sure that the reason the Director of the FBI flew directly to Tucson was to be the public face of the investigation: the local sheriff did no one any favors by his very public, very emotional, and very, very incorrect characterization of this mass murder as a direct result of political rhetoric and racism, in his mind equating the struggle to secure the borders with the Safeway Shooting. The sheriff compromised the future court case by reacting more from his personal involvement in both the local politics and the people who are the victims of this tragedy than as a sworn law enforcement official.
The absolute horror of incorrectly announcing the death of one shooting victim, as well as the consistent use of the past tense in describing her close personal relationship to so many people whose faces appeared on the TV screen, created confusion that simply did not have to be transmitted to the world in a rush to be the first on-camera with what was assumed to be the up-to-the-minute truth. Being the first on-scene far too often leads to be the most wrong, rather than the TV network with the best reporting. Once those words go out, there is no taking them back. Deaths were reported of living persons; an accomplice was tarred and feathered when there was no accomplice; a murderer was motivated by political rhetoric when it now seems more likely he is a victim of his own paranoid schitzophrenia.
Witnesses stepped in front of the camera in ill-advised media appearances, including a community college teacher and a student who claim to be well-aware of the danger this criminal posed to himself and others -- putting themselves into not just the chain of evidence, but in the line to be sued! A former grade-school classmate of the shooter came forward to share her close friendship with him, although she had not seen him since 8th grade and her close personal relationship was based on them both being in the band. We have been shocked by the link to Hollywood celebrities, including a distant second-cousin relationship with Gwynneth Paltrow, who has never met Gabrielle Griffiths! When the parents of the shooter had the audacity not just to refuse to be interviewed, but barracaded themselves behind plywood to avoid being filmed during this difficult time, the media took it as a personal affront.
And the absolute gall of the shooter not to utter one word: how dare he invoke his rights when the world wants to know everything there is to know about him, his family, his mental illness, his motivation, his proficiency with the handgun ... there is no end to what the world wants to know!!
This is what has to stop: the rush to judgment. Whatever happened to the "no comment" so prevalent in our past? Loose lips sink a ship, but tight lips protect the evidence until it is presented in a court of law. The world may want to know, but we really have no "right" to know until we know what really happened, who is involved, and what this means now that we've figured it out.
I don't want to see my right to voice my opinion compromised by the media's intrusiveness into crime scenes, or the local sheriff's rush to personal judgment, nor by anyone calling me out for speaking my mind simply because I do not agree with their point of view. Sometimes, a good argument helps the participants and the observers clarify their thinking, but everyone needs to focus on the fact that we can accept that others may have a different perspective and/or point of view, without having to agree with them -- or harming them.
What is it the coaches say? "Leave it on the field, gentlemen. Leave it on the field."
Sunday, January 9, 2011
It's Easy to Place Blame
Here it goes again: it's the schools and/or it's the failure of the mental health system and/or it's the fault of a military recruiter. A young person, who cannot handle his own life and apparently has a limited adult support system in his world view, carries a weapon into a public place and shoots to kill. We ALL saw it coming after the fact, so we begin to place the blame: if the schools knew this person had problems, why didn't THEY do something? if the recruiter knew that he was mentally unfit for duty, why didn't HE do something? if the parents knew their son had problems, why didn't THEY do something?
He dropped out of high school: THAT should have been a red flag! Yeah, it probably was another red flag in this person's life, but his was probably a life filled with red flags. School personnel can ask questions, voice concerns behind closed doors, request that the school counselor talks to the student, but cannot legally do much unless the parent is a willing participant in the process. Why blame the schools for the failure of society to deal with real issues in a real way?
Ah-ha: his community college told him to leave and not come back until he had his personal issues under control. Bingo: it's the college's fault that he committed the heinous crime yesterday! We seem to forget that, in this country, once a child celebrates the 18th birthday, s/he is legally an adult and protected by privacy laws. A 22-year-old man can be involuntarily committed for mental health evaluation, but first -- he has to do something that requires that step to be taken. Acting weird, inflammatory writing in a class assignment, and challenging authority do not rise to the level of immediate action required, according to our Constitution.
Oh, wait!! There's another agency in line for blame: the military. This criminal tried to enlist in the military and was denied: mental issues. Why didn't that recruiter hand him off directly to mental health? Why didn't that person put his career on the line to forestall what this applicant may do sometime in his future? Because the applicant is an adult who has the legal right to his mental health issues: he can request treatment and he can refuse treatment, but it is not until he actually does something that any agency can take direct action to intervene.
And, God forbid, if the parents knew the child was mentally ill, why didn't THEY do something about it? I suspect that the majority of parents chalk up abberent behavior to just being a typical teen, not to the awareness that a child may be mentally ill and harm himself and/or others. I'm sure that they are as shocked by their son's actions yesterday as the rest of us, and are looking back to see what they missed, what they could have done to prevent their son's actions yesterday.
Maybe it takes a shocking public execution of a federal judge, the attempted assassination of a member of Congress, the senseless murder of 5 civilians and the life-threating injuries to another dozen people to start the conversation about necessary changes in the way we are legally allowed to do something. We are handcuffed by individual rights that deny the rights of the community and the citizens who speak up. It is wrong when a citizen calls for assistance and is told that nothing can be done until/unless a crime has been committed.
Well, the crime has been committed. Again.
Rather than placing blame after the fact for failing to fix the kid, perhaps the lesson in this shocking violence is to change the way we look at the rights of the community to protect itself, not just in assigning 24/7 protection to members of Congress. We all put our lives on the line every single day because we live in a time when we are forced to be reactive, rather than proactive about crime. We, the people, deserve the same protection in our lives as our elected officials, but if that's where it has to start, then let the conversations and, hopefully, the changes begin.
Now. Let's not wait for the inevitable next time.
He dropped out of high school: THAT should have been a red flag! Yeah, it probably was another red flag in this person's life, but his was probably a life filled with red flags. School personnel can ask questions, voice concerns behind closed doors, request that the school counselor talks to the student, but cannot legally do much unless the parent is a willing participant in the process. Why blame the schools for the failure of society to deal with real issues in a real way?
Ah-ha: his community college told him to leave and not come back until he had his personal issues under control. Bingo: it's the college's fault that he committed the heinous crime yesterday! We seem to forget that, in this country, once a child celebrates the 18th birthday, s/he is legally an adult and protected by privacy laws. A 22-year-old man can be involuntarily committed for mental health evaluation, but first -- he has to do something that requires that step to be taken. Acting weird, inflammatory writing in a class assignment, and challenging authority do not rise to the level of immediate action required, according to our Constitution.
Oh, wait!! There's another agency in line for blame: the military. This criminal tried to enlist in the military and was denied: mental issues. Why didn't that recruiter hand him off directly to mental health? Why didn't that person put his career on the line to forestall what this applicant may do sometime in his future? Because the applicant is an adult who has the legal right to his mental health issues: he can request treatment and he can refuse treatment, but it is not until he actually does something that any agency can take direct action to intervene.
And, God forbid, if the parents knew the child was mentally ill, why didn't THEY do something about it? I suspect that the majority of parents chalk up abberent behavior to just being a typical teen, not to the awareness that a child may be mentally ill and harm himself and/or others. I'm sure that they are as shocked by their son's actions yesterday as the rest of us, and are looking back to see what they missed, what they could have done to prevent their son's actions yesterday.
Maybe it takes a shocking public execution of a federal judge, the attempted assassination of a member of Congress, the senseless murder of 5 civilians and the life-threating injuries to another dozen people to start the conversation about necessary changes in the way we are legally allowed to do something. We are handcuffed by individual rights that deny the rights of the community and the citizens who speak up. It is wrong when a citizen calls for assistance and is told that nothing can be done until/unless a crime has been committed.
Well, the crime has been committed. Again.
Rather than placing blame after the fact for failing to fix the kid, perhaps the lesson in this shocking violence is to change the way we look at the rights of the community to protect itself, not just in assigning 24/7 protection to members of Congress. We all put our lives on the line every single day because we live in a time when we are forced to be reactive, rather than proactive about crime. We, the people, deserve the same protection in our lives as our elected officials, but if that's where it has to start, then let the conversations and, hopefully, the changes begin.
Now. Let's not wait for the inevitable next time.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Writing as Revision
A student said to me in passing that he had rated me on one of the websites that allow students to do so. I smiled and asked him if I should thank him or cringe. He responded that he believes I'm the best teacher he's had during his college career, but he also acknowledged that students either rate me highly or ... hate me, most often because they feel that I am too hard on them and expect too much. If I believe the good, I also have to believe the bad, and if the bad is out there, it behooves me to know what it is. With the upcoming semester beginning in another week, I decided to read the comments and see how I can refocus my instruction toward the goal of being a better teacher for all the students in the classroom, including those who ... hate me.
The comments are benign, with the exception of one note by a student about how rude I am. The example of my rudeness is tearing up student essays, which I did, indeed, do -- as part of a lesson on revision, the skill I believe is most important in the writing process. Students own their writing regardless of their proficiency, so their perception of revision is to run spell checker and grammar checker; whether any changes are made as a result of those two computer clicks, the final papers are rife with grammar, mechanics, and spelling errors. After I respond in red ink to the many obvious technical errors still present in a final, polished essay, as well as the actual content of the paper, the students are stunned not to see that bright, shiny A+ at the top of the paper.
My focus is on the key idea of the paper, the organization of the presentation of information, then the development of the idea, and, finally, the conclusion. The paper has to say something worthwhile, say it well, and make sense from beginning to end; if it does not accomplish those goals, then rewrite it until it does. When I work with students to revise, which means to change the actual content of the paper, their eyes glaze and they go into a hypnotic state of disbelief. The idea of literally tearing apart a paper and rewriting it to improve the idea, or to reorganize the presentation of the idea, and/or refine the conclusion based on the presentation, is anathema to their belief system.
To make my point, after first offering students the opportunity to make their own changes while working in writer's groups in a workshop format, I tear the paper into the separate paragraphs, spread them on the table separately, and then reorganize them and tape the paper together in the new configuration. I point out to the student writers that ideas often clarify as we write, so where we begin is often not the best part of the essay, but the conclusion often makes an excellent opening paragraph. That one simple organizational change can often refocus the essay so the student then knows how to reorganize and redevelop the rest of the original paragraphs. Sometimes, I can even convince a student to toss out a paragraph or two and replace that content with new content based on the new perspective on their main idea.
However, more often than not, the student assures me that is NOT the way s/he writes an essay, to which I just as often reply, "I know. That's why I'm taking the time to work with you: to improve your ability to write a college-level essay so you can pass this class, as well as all the other college classes that require you to write an essay."
Thus, technically, the student is right: I do tear up student essays and that may seem, to some people, rude. However, it's part of the formal learning process conducted by a college instructor, not the actions of a rude madwoman whose goal is to harass and intimidate hapless victims. Some students get it, while others never will, but my job is to instruct, not to enable, and I'm going to do my job.
What I think is rude is the student whose response to my instruction is to inform me that I have "no right" to change their papers, that I "have to accept" their writing the way it is and not make any changes that violate their freedom of expression. If I point out my professional responsibility is not just to respond to their writing, but to evaluate it and assign it a grade based on the quality indicators published in the course rubric, they head for the main office to protest -- probably using the word rude in their presentation of my many failings, shortcomings, and unreasonable demands for excellence.
This is a syndrome symptomatic of today's young people, who enjoy a sense of personal empowerment with limited basis in fact. There are few young people who have the knowledge, the education, and/or the experience I have, but far too many who feel it is their duty to educate me on what I can and cannot do in the process of formal classroom instruction. Students think it is hilarious when they have to take a class from a dinosaur, but cringe in horror when they realize how well-prepared the dinosaur is to teach the class and how high the expectations are for student performance! Enrollment drops by half within the first couple of weeks as students actively pursue the path of least resistance. Why stay enrolled in a class where the teacher expects your best performance when you can get the same credit and a higher grade from another teacher?
I get it, but I cannot change my belief system to accommodate an educational philosophy I do not believe or support. School has to be challenging, not simply a holding tank for students who need a Pell Grant to pay living expenses while they wait for a high-paying job to drop into their laps. Teachers have to be empowered to draw a strong line between acceptable and unacceptable, and know that line will be enforced by the system. Parents must assume that their young children are going to earn a living at some point in their lives and support the laws that not just require their children to attend school, but to master basic core requirements so if/when the child wants to attend college, s/he has the basic skills to succeed. If all the grown-ups stand together when the children are young, the college student will understand that there are no excused absences in life, no late work accepted, no make-up or extra-credit assignment available, and no good job for a person with bad performance.
We all have to be willing to tear apart the previous draft and reassemble it into another presentation that has a stronger core idea, better organization from beginning to middle to end, and a much stronger presentation based in fact. If a student is not willing to learn how to not just do it, but do it better, perhaps college is not an appropriate placement at this stage of that student's life. Perhaps life still has lessons to teach before that student is ready not just to enroll in a college course, but to ... learn ... regardless of how rude the teacher is perceived to be.
The comments are benign, with the exception of one note by a student about how rude I am. The example of my rudeness is tearing up student essays, which I did, indeed, do -- as part of a lesson on revision, the skill I believe is most important in the writing process. Students own their writing regardless of their proficiency, so their perception of revision is to run spell checker and grammar checker; whether any changes are made as a result of those two computer clicks, the final papers are rife with grammar, mechanics, and spelling errors. After I respond in red ink to the many obvious technical errors still present in a final, polished essay, as well as the actual content of the paper, the students are stunned not to see that bright, shiny A+ at the top of the paper.
My focus is on the key idea of the paper, the organization of the presentation of information, then the development of the idea, and, finally, the conclusion. The paper has to say something worthwhile, say it well, and make sense from beginning to end; if it does not accomplish those goals, then rewrite it until it does. When I work with students to revise, which means to change the actual content of the paper, their eyes glaze and they go into a hypnotic state of disbelief. The idea of literally tearing apart a paper and rewriting it to improve the idea, or to reorganize the presentation of the idea, and/or refine the conclusion based on the presentation, is anathema to their belief system.
To make my point, after first offering students the opportunity to make their own changes while working in writer's groups in a workshop format, I tear the paper into the separate paragraphs, spread them on the table separately, and then reorganize them and tape the paper together in the new configuration. I point out to the student writers that ideas often clarify as we write, so where we begin is often not the best part of the essay, but the conclusion often makes an excellent opening paragraph. That one simple organizational change can often refocus the essay so the student then knows how to reorganize and redevelop the rest of the original paragraphs. Sometimes, I can even convince a student to toss out a paragraph or two and replace that content with new content based on the new perspective on their main idea.
However, more often than not, the student assures me that is NOT the way s/he writes an essay, to which I just as often reply, "I know. That's why I'm taking the time to work with you: to improve your ability to write a college-level essay so you can pass this class, as well as all the other college classes that require you to write an essay."
Thus, technically, the student is right: I do tear up student essays and that may seem, to some people, rude. However, it's part of the formal learning process conducted by a college instructor, not the actions of a rude madwoman whose goal is to harass and intimidate hapless victims. Some students get it, while others never will, but my job is to instruct, not to enable, and I'm going to do my job.
What I think is rude is the student whose response to my instruction is to inform me that I have "no right" to change their papers, that I "have to accept" their writing the way it is and not make any changes that violate their freedom of expression. If I point out my professional responsibility is not just to respond to their writing, but to evaluate it and assign it a grade based on the quality indicators published in the course rubric, they head for the main office to protest -- probably using the word rude in their presentation of my many failings, shortcomings, and unreasonable demands for excellence.
This is a syndrome symptomatic of today's young people, who enjoy a sense of personal empowerment with limited basis in fact. There are few young people who have the knowledge, the education, and/or the experience I have, but far too many who feel it is their duty to educate me on what I can and cannot do in the process of formal classroom instruction. Students think it is hilarious when they have to take a class from a dinosaur, but cringe in horror when they realize how well-prepared the dinosaur is to teach the class and how high the expectations are for student performance! Enrollment drops by half within the first couple of weeks as students actively pursue the path of least resistance. Why stay enrolled in a class where the teacher expects your best performance when you can get the same credit and a higher grade from another teacher?
I get it, but I cannot change my belief system to accommodate an educational philosophy I do not believe or support. School has to be challenging, not simply a holding tank for students who need a Pell Grant to pay living expenses while they wait for a high-paying job to drop into their laps. Teachers have to be empowered to draw a strong line between acceptable and unacceptable, and know that line will be enforced by the system. Parents must assume that their young children are going to earn a living at some point in their lives and support the laws that not just require their children to attend school, but to master basic core requirements so if/when the child wants to attend college, s/he has the basic skills to succeed. If all the grown-ups stand together when the children are young, the college student will understand that there are no excused absences in life, no late work accepted, no make-up or extra-credit assignment available, and no good job for a person with bad performance.
We all have to be willing to tear apart the previous draft and reassemble it into another presentation that has a stronger core idea, better organization from beginning to middle to end, and a much stronger presentation based in fact. If a student is not willing to learn how to not just do it, but do it better, perhaps college is not an appropriate placement at this stage of that student's life. Perhaps life still has lessons to teach before that student is ready not just to enroll in a college course, but to ... learn ... regardless of how rude the teacher is perceived to be.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Whitewashing History
Samuel Clemons, known by his pseudonym Mark Twain, captured not just the diction of his time with uncanny accuracy, but also the social climate. His masterpieces tell the backstory of a time in this country that included use of the terms nigger and slave to describe what were also referred to as colored people. The terms may be perjorative in light of today's society, but during Twain's time (1885), he was writing history, not politically correct rhetoric.
An article in the local newspaper describes one Twain scholar's attempts to make Twain's work less offensive to today's students by removing what is referred to as "the n word" in Twain's work. I disagree with that decision. Changing the way history is portrayed does not change history, but it does raise questions about why anyone fears the truth in writing and challenges today's youth to answer tough questions. Twain scholar Alan Gribben says that his experience with changing the terminology during public readings convinces him that the changes make Twain more accessible to today's readers, avoiding, as he puts it, putting "the books [Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn] in danger of joining the list of literary classics that Twain once humorously defined as those 'which people praise and don’t read'" (PHILLIP RAWLS • THE ASSOCIATED PRESS • JANUARY 5, 2011, http://www.mydesert.com/article/20110105/ LIFESTYLES0105/110105009/New+edition+removes+Mark+Twain+s ++offensive++ words).
The true offense is changing a classic work of literature to appease those who are unable to stand up to the truth and deal with it in open dialog. I feel equally as strong about Harper Lee's classic, To Kill a Mockingbird, a novel that portrays the reality of the deep South and the classic conflict between black and white. Lee allows the reader to decide not just the core issues, but the many options for using the past as a textbook for both the present and the future. We do not change people by changing language, but we do change how people respond to issues and the language used to express them when we presume to rewrite the way the world was to conform with anyone's idea of how it should be.
Mark Twain wrote that “... the difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter.” Gribben points out these words of Twain's as his defense for changing the classics because "the N-word appears 219 times in Huck Finn and four times in Tom Sawyer." For me, that means that I am afforded a total of 223 opportunities to allow my students to become engrossed in how the commonplace usage of labels for people can create a divisive environment between races, religions, political preferences, ethnic origins, and/or sexual orientation. The "n" word becomes a modern metaphor for all forms of discrimination and a dynamic teaching tool.
Avoiding truth creates falsehood, and falsehood is far too often used to obfuscate reality. Twain said that words are "... really a large matter," and to me, because the words do matter, they should never be changed.
An article in the local newspaper describes one Twain scholar's attempts to make Twain's work less offensive to today's students by removing what is referred to as "the n word" in Twain's work. I disagree with that decision. Changing the way history is portrayed does not change history, but it does raise questions about why anyone fears the truth in writing and challenges today's youth to answer tough questions. Twain scholar Alan Gribben says that his experience with changing the terminology during public readings convinces him that the changes make Twain more accessible to today's readers, avoiding, as he puts it, putting "the books [Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn] in danger of joining the list of literary classics that Twain once humorously defined as those 'which people praise and don’t read'" (PHILLIP RAWLS • THE ASSOCIATED PRESS • JANUARY 5, 2011, http://www.mydesert.com/article/20110105/ LIFESTYLES0105/110105009/New+edition+removes+Mark+Twain+s ++offensive++ words).
The true offense is changing a classic work of literature to appease those who are unable to stand up to the truth and deal with it in open dialog. I feel equally as strong about Harper Lee's classic, To Kill a Mockingbird, a novel that portrays the reality of the deep South and the classic conflict between black and white. Lee allows the reader to decide not just the core issues, but the many options for using the past as a textbook for both the present and the future. We do not change people by changing language, but we do change how people respond to issues and the language used to express them when we presume to rewrite the way the world was to conform with anyone's idea of how it should be.
Mark Twain wrote that “... the difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter.” Gribben points out these words of Twain's as his defense for changing the classics because "the N-word appears 219 times in Huck Finn and four times in Tom Sawyer." For me, that means that I am afforded a total of 223 opportunities to allow my students to become engrossed in how the commonplace usage of labels for people can create a divisive environment between races, religions, political preferences, ethnic origins, and/or sexual orientation. The "n" word becomes a modern metaphor for all forms of discrimination and a dynamic teaching tool.
Avoiding truth creates falsehood, and falsehood is far too often used to obfuscate reality. Twain said that words are "... really a large matter," and to me, because the words do matter, they should never be changed.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Out of Step
MSN posted the best/worst TV shows of 2010, a long list of shows I have never watched. The only show I've seen is Glee, and that's because I always was a music geek, but it was much better when it began than when the season ended.
Anything with "typical" family sitcom in the description or vampires gets a pass from me. I don't find it even mildly amusing that a series is based on a for-hire killer or buried six feet under. Anyone under the age of 25 showing me by their lifestyle how to live mine is going to be removed from the channel selector. At my age, I know there is more to life than gym, tanning, groceries, indiscriminate hooking up, hangovers, and bitch-slapping sisters taking the daily walk of shame. I've given up on talk shows, which I used to enjoy, because the guests play "one-up" with each other, talking over each other's questions/responses and including little insider opinions that rankle those of us not in the know. The big-name morning shows are trivial and petty, with far too much hee-hawing and pandering to the youth demographic. The doctor shows are interesting, a bit too theatrical at times, but where there once was one, there are now far too many competing with each other for a share of the audience.
I do watch movies on TV, but I dvr them first so I can fast-forward through the commercials, which have become either ridiculous or offensive. All that little writing at the bottom of the screen that no one can read negates the generous terms and offers of the big writing, but the point is to hide the truth in advertising that is cuted-up for the brain dead consumer. When the consumer is told that all s/he has to do to receive a second set of the offered item is pay for shipping and handling, the purchaser has no idea the second set will be sent via a personal shopper in a hired limo traveling cross country, staying at the finest hotels, and emptying the mini-bar and ordering from the room service menu at each stop!
I am totally out of step with the times, for which I remain grateful. I don't have to fit the demographic of an advertising agency's publicity campaign. I can be myself, do my own thing, answer the phone if/when I choose to do so, refuse to text anyone for any reason, and wear my pull-on pants and athletic shoes for more than one season. There are no designer stilettos in my future, no cute must-have accessories, no partying like there is no tomorrow, and none of the TV shows the media says I must watch.
Anything with "typical" family sitcom in the description or vampires gets a pass from me. I don't find it even mildly amusing that a series is based on a for-hire killer or buried six feet under. Anyone under the age of 25 showing me by their lifestyle how to live mine is going to be removed from the channel selector. At my age, I know there is more to life than gym, tanning, groceries, indiscriminate hooking up, hangovers, and bitch-slapping sisters taking the daily walk of shame. I've given up on talk shows, which I used to enjoy, because the guests play "one-up" with each other, talking over each other's questions/responses and including little insider opinions that rankle those of us not in the know. The big-name morning shows are trivial and petty, with far too much hee-hawing and pandering to the youth demographic. The doctor shows are interesting, a bit too theatrical at times, but where there once was one, there are now far too many competing with each other for a share of the audience.
I do watch movies on TV, but I dvr them first so I can fast-forward through the commercials, which have become either ridiculous or offensive. All that little writing at the bottom of the screen that no one can read negates the generous terms and offers of the big writing, but the point is to hide the truth in advertising that is cuted-up for the brain dead consumer. When the consumer is told that all s/he has to do to receive a second set of the offered item is pay for shipping and handling, the purchaser has no idea the second set will be sent via a personal shopper in a hired limo traveling cross country, staying at the finest hotels, and emptying the mini-bar and ordering from the room service menu at each stop!
I am totally out of step with the times, for which I remain grateful. I don't have to fit the demographic of an advertising agency's publicity campaign. I can be myself, do my own thing, answer the phone if/when I choose to do so, refuse to text anyone for any reason, and wear my pull-on pants and athletic shoes for more than one season. There are no designer stilettos in my future, no cute must-have accessories, no partying like there is no tomorrow, and none of the TV shows the media says I must watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)