This past weekend, we saw a major failure of the international anti-terrorist security system. The Netherlands, along with a host of other nations more inimical to the interests of the United States, allowed a radical Islamist to board a plane bound for the United States with explosive materials in his possession. It was only the hand of the lord which prevented a major airline disaster.
The frightening thing is that the agency in charge of airline security in the Netherlands claims that all procedures were exactly followed and implemented as written. This flies in the face of all the facts that have been revealed since the incident unless one concludes that the agency is telling us that all the inconvenience to passengers and intrusive procedures that have been instituted since 9/11 has been totally ineffective.
That run-down nations like Nigeria and Yemen, who harbor no liking for the United States and very little concern for human dignity or human life, should do a slapdash job of checking for terrorists or the possibility of terrorism is understandable. Not so with a progressive country like the Netherlands and therein lies the rub. If the security procedures are indeed effective then it seems, despite the protests of the Netherlands authorities, that someone wasn't properly doing his job.
Upon serious deliberations we came up with the perfect solution for the worldwide airline security crisis that has plagued the United States. Before any flight originating from a foreign country leaves its gate, a member of the security team which checked the passengers must certify that the plane is safe and then board the plane for the trip. If that doesn't ensure a more thorough check of security threats, nothing will.
I agree that the foregoing is a radical, rather impractical solution. The current thinking goes something like this: When the shoe bomber tried to blow up a plane we started to check passengers' shoes now we will have to check everyone's crotch, and in the future when someone finally comes up with the ultimate hiding places, everyone will have to throw up and void before getting on a plane.
The true solution is that we have to get tougher with our enemies. We have to do profiling, we have to do as much intrusive searching as we are technically able to do we have to put a total embargo on travelers who are nationals of countries inimical to our interests, and we have to minutely screen by means of personal interview anyone who has traveled to embargoed countries. We have to gain the ascendency over those who wish us harm and, yes, it will cost us, in treasure, and in lives.
The current outlook for this is dismal. We have a president who gives fine speeches but doesn't have the stomach or the willingness to hit our enemies where it hurts. The 9/11 criminals have been given a public forum for their denunciations when they are brought to trial. Our ability to get information from our captives has been emasculated. Our policy regarding piracy on the high seas reflects a pusillanimity unbecoming a nation with historically unprecedented strength.
Ironically, other less endowed nations have come to the realization that it is do or die. The Mexicans are fighting a battle to the death with their criminal drug elements and the Pakistanis are doing the same with their home-grown Al Quaida. Even the Europeans are beginning to see the threat from radical islam and the people are becoming disenchanted with their high sounding but hollow principles.
Maybe there is yet hope that we will come to our senses before it's too late.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
NPR and You
We recently ran some posts on the lack of comments to our other posts as well as to our lack of production. It seems we have been lax in not posting enough food for thought. When this blog began we posted almost one per day (excluding Saturday) but now we are down to about 2 per week.
I think the two issues are related. When we post a new work, the older work, which may not have yet been read by our loyal readership, takes a subordinate position and may not be read at all in the future. So, understandably, we are loath to publish until we feel that everyone has seen the previous post.
We have no other method to evaluate the popularity of our content other than by getting your feedback in the comments section. Nielsen is a possibility but the management here at Dr. G. cannot come up with the necessary funds to purchase their services. Maybe we should initiate a fund drive like the public radio stations do. On second thought, if we can't even get you to comment for free, I doubt we could get any money out of you skinflints.
I think the two issues are related. When we post a new work, the older work, which may not have yet been read by our loyal readership, takes a subordinate position and may not be read at all in the future. So, understandably, we are loath to publish until we feel that everyone has seen the previous post.
We have no other method to evaluate the popularity of our content other than by getting your feedback in the comments section. Nielsen is a possibility but the management here at Dr. G. cannot come up with the necessary funds to purchase their services. Maybe we should initiate a fund drive like the public radio stations do. On second thought, if we can't even get you to comment for free, I doubt we could get any money out of you skinflints.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
The Fat Lady Has Not Yet Sung
Now that the posturing, negotiating, double dealing, and compromising about the ill-considered health care reform bill is all but over, let's examine its prospects in becoming law.
The basics of this bill, (particularly the Senate version of it) was masterfully summed up by senator Mitch McConnell just before the first cloture vote in the dead of night early Monday morning. It is contained in congressional record page S13643. Click here for the first page which begins in the rightmost column then close the pdf and click on "next page" of the screen that appears
His impassioned plea didn't move a single vote. Each player in this game gained something for his constituency or his ego while the wider public lost a great deal.
So where do we go from here? If this bill passes the Senate, it still needs to be reconciled with the House version and this is done by means of a conference committee. The committee is appointed by the leadership of each house, respectively and usually consists of the chairmen and ranking members of the permanent committees that worked on the bill. There does not need to be an equal number of members from both houses.
The work of this committee (most of which is done behind closed doors) consists of hashing out a compromise between one version and another. So, for instance, if a bill from the House sets aside a million dollars for something and the Senate version two million dollars, the conferees decide on one and a half million. The purpose is to get one version hashed out. When that is done, the bill is then sent back to both houses to vote on it as is. A simple majority is required in each house.
I can't see how this bill can be reconciled. Although the Senate is on the way to a straight party line vote which will mean the Democrats have 60 votes to the Republican's 40, the House bill had only a 5 vote difference which means that if three congressmen had changed their vote from yea to nay, the bill would have been defeated.
One of the unknowns in this game is whether or not the conference report (bill) can be fillibustered. There is quite a difference of opinion on that. If it can be fillibustered, then the Senate leadership will still need 60 votes to pass this and that would mean that all the compromises made to accommodate each individual senator would have to be kept pretty much intact. If it can't be fillibustered, then the Democrats only need 50 votes to pass it and they certainly would have enough votes even if some senators desert the caucus.
The House is a different story. In order for it to pass, they need every vote they originally got. It's inconceivable to me that when the conference bill finally emerges that it won't contain something that at least 3 representatives who originally voted for the bill wouldn't take umbrage to and vote against. The main candidates for this would be abortion, the public option, and financing (taxes). Some liberals, whose dream of having the government increase its stranglehold on people's lives seems within their grasp will vote for the bill with or without the public option since it does contain the requirement that every citizen buy health insurance. Others, anti-capitalists among them, may object that the insurance companies get a windfall without the public option and vote against it. If the conference bill weakens the Stupak ammendment on abortion, some of the blue dog democrats might desert the party and vote against the bill.
On top of all this, the polls increasingly show that the public is against the bill and this could influence some representatives to rethink their commitment to it, especially after the holiday visit back home where they will certainly hear from their constituents in person.
Bottom line: It's not a done deal by a far shot.
The basics of this bill, (particularly the Senate version of it) was masterfully summed up by senator Mitch McConnell just before the first cloture vote in the dead of night early Monday morning. It is contained in congressional record page S13643. Click here for the first page which begins in the rightmost column then close the pdf and click on "next page" of the screen that appears
His impassioned plea didn't move a single vote. Each player in this game gained something for his constituency or his ego while the wider public lost a great deal.
So where do we go from here? If this bill passes the Senate, it still needs to be reconciled with the House version and this is done by means of a conference committee. The committee is appointed by the leadership of each house, respectively and usually consists of the chairmen and ranking members of the permanent committees that worked on the bill. There does not need to be an equal number of members from both houses.
The work of this committee (most of which is done behind closed doors) consists of hashing out a compromise between one version and another. So, for instance, if a bill from the House sets aside a million dollars for something and the Senate version two million dollars, the conferees decide on one and a half million. The purpose is to get one version hashed out. When that is done, the bill is then sent back to both houses to vote on it as is. A simple majority is required in each house.
I can't see how this bill can be reconciled. Although the Senate is on the way to a straight party line vote which will mean the Democrats have 60 votes to the Republican's 40, the House bill had only a 5 vote difference which means that if three congressmen had changed their vote from yea to nay, the bill would have been defeated.
One of the unknowns in this game is whether or not the conference report (bill) can be fillibustered. There is quite a difference of opinion on that. If it can be fillibustered, then the Senate leadership will still need 60 votes to pass this and that would mean that all the compromises made to accommodate each individual senator would have to be kept pretty much intact. If it can't be fillibustered, then the Democrats only need 50 votes to pass it and they certainly would have enough votes even if some senators desert the caucus.
The House is a different story. In order for it to pass, they need every vote they originally got. It's inconceivable to me that when the conference bill finally emerges that it won't contain something that at least 3 representatives who originally voted for the bill wouldn't take umbrage to and vote against. The main candidates for this would be abortion, the public option, and financing (taxes). Some liberals, whose dream of having the government increase its stranglehold on people's lives seems within their grasp will vote for the bill with or without the public option since it does contain the requirement that every citizen buy health insurance. Others, anti-capitalists among them, may object that the insurance companies get a windfall without the public option and vote against it. If the conference bill weakens the Stupak ammendment on abortion, some of the blue dog democrats might desert the party and vote against the bill.
On top of all this, the polls increasingly show that the public is against the bill and this could influence some representatives to rethink their commitment to it, especially after the holiday visit back home where they will certainly hear from their constituents in person.
Bottom line: It's not a done deal by a far shot.
Friday, December 25, 2009
To Whom Belongs this Coat?
We recently attended a family celebration in another city, about an hour and a half drive from home. It was a cold night and necessitated some outerwear. My wife took her coat out of the coat closet and was ready to go. Before we left, daughter took a series of pictures of her parents, dressed for a party.
When we arrived at the party locale, we hung our coats on the rack provided for the guests and joined the other guests.
When it came time to leave, my wife took a while to come outside and when she did, it was sans coat. I didn't understand what had happened and it turned out that her coat was missing. I went back in to check and noticed a coat that looked very much like the one she came in, and it was hanging in the exact place the original coat had been hung. I am usually not very observant but I could plainly see that this was not my wife's coat. We therefore decided to leave it where it was but asked the hostess to take it home in case no one else claimed it.
Upon arrival home, putting her pashmina in the closet, she exclaimed "Here's my coat!" Well, even Houdini couldn't do this trick effectively. Turns out, she had taken daughter's coat.
When I asked daughter if she had gotten her coat back, she indicated that she didn't really use that coat very much and as an indication of how little she used it she said, "I took five pictures of it and didn't even notice it was mine!"
When we arrived at the party locale, we hung our coats on the rack provided for the guests and joined the other guests.
When it came time to leave, my wife took a while to come outside and when she did, it was sans coat. I didn't understand what had happened and it turned out that her coat was missing. I went back in to check and noticed a coat that looked very much like the one she came in, and it was hanging in the exact place the original coat had been hung. I am usually not very observant but I could plainly see that this was not my wife's coat. We therefore decided to leave it where it was but asked the hostess to take it home in case no one else claimed it.
Upon arrival home, putting her pashmina in the closet, she exclaimed "Here's my coat!" Well, even Houdini couldn't do this trick effectively. Turns out, she had taken daughter's coat.
When I asked daughter if she had gotten her coat back, she indicated that she didn't really use that coat very much and as an indication of how little she used it she said, "I took five pictures of it and didn't even notice it was mine!"
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Audience Participation
A while back, our friends at Iceberg Carwash posted several pieces on the comments they received or didn't receive. A metric called CPP (comments per post) was established, and although the ultimate numbers were never revealed, it became obvious that the metric was important in judging the success of the blog.
Alas, here at Dr. G we notice that although we generate a lot of commentary on our irrelevance or stupidity, our posts on political or social matters or just plain artsy posts don't generate much interest at all. We have tried poetry, social comment, rants, music reviews, political commentary all without igniting the spark that will burgeon into the raging fire of debate.
So the question is, what can stir you out of your torpor?
Let us know.
Alas, here at Dr. G we notice that although we generate a lot of commentary on our irrelevance or stupidity, our posts on political or social matters or just plain artsy posts don't generate much interest at all. We have tried poetry, social comment, rants, music reviews, political commentary all without igniting the spark that will burgeon into the raging fire of debate.
So the question is, what can stir you out of your torpor?
Let us know.
Monday, December 21, 2009
WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEARN?
I see where North Korea is again making threats against South Korea and implicitly against the United States in threatening to use disputed sea areas of the west coast of Korea for ordnance practice. This comes at the same time that our pusillanimous envoys are making nice to them in another futile round of diplomatic efforts to get the Koreans to give up their nuclear program.
If the lessons of history can tell us anything it is that the longer a strong country allows itself to be bluffed by a weak one the better the chance that the weak one will become stronger. In 1936, the Germans marched an army into the Rhineland, an area declared to remain demilitarized by the treaty of Versailles. The German military had strict orders that if even one shot was fired against them, they were to turn tail and leave. But not one Frenchman even lifted a gun to stop the depredation. Two years later, at Munich, the victors of World War I calmly gave away Czech sovereignty to the loser of the conflict. The Germans were still not as strong as they ultimately became but they were stronger than they had been in 1936. The loss of Czechoslovakia to the Germans greatly increased their strength further and denied Czechoslovakia's industrial might to the allied powers.
The former Soviet Union bullied and bluffed the western powers for close to 70 years, and with the help of the United States developed from a backwards, agrarian nation into an industrial one (still backwards though) that fomented untold trouble for the US and its allies. Although the Soviet Union fell under the force of Reagan's economic warfare, its successor, Russia, continues to bluff and bully, demanding a place at the table among the strong industrial economies when its economy barely matches that of several of the US individual states.
I can understand that the US doesn't want to get involved in a third war (if it even can) in Asia. But I can't see a great effort needed for the most powerful and richest country in the world to teach a lesson to a tenth rate starving nation. Yes they have a large army. Yes, they may have some nuclear weapons although it isn't clear if they or their delivery systems work. I wonder what would happen if some serious damage were done to their most sophisticated installations and modernized cities. If their leaders were somehow incapacitated, what good would their army do them? These are desperate people and the leadership would very quickly be at each others' throats, nullifying their ability to mount a meaningful attack anywhere. If they did manage to fire some nuclear warheads, the most likely target would be South Korea so I can understand why the south doesn't want any action by the US that isn't cleared by them.
More's the pity, because the north will eventually take on the south anyway and the longer we wait the worse will be the result.
If the lessons of history can tell us anything it is that the longer a strong country allows itself to be bluffed by a weak one the better the chance that the weak one will become stronger. In 1936, the Germans marched an army into the Rhineland, an area declared to remain demilitarized by the treaty of Versailles. The German military had strict orders that if even one shot was fired against them, they were to turn tail and leave. But not one Frenchman even lifted a gun to stop the depredation. Two years later, at Munich, the victors of World War I calmly gave away Czech sovereignty to the loser of the conflict. The Germans were still not as strong as they ultimately became but they were stronger than they had been in 1936. The loss of Czechoslovakia to the Germans greatly increased their strength further and denied Czechoslovakia's industrial might to the allied powers.
The former Soviet Union bullied and bluffed the western powers for close to 70 years, and with the help of the United States developed from a backwards, agrarian nation into an industrial one (still backwards though) that fomented untold trouble for the US and its allies. Although the Soviet Union fell under the force of Reagan's economic warfare, its successor, Russia, continues to bluff and bully, demanding a place at the table among the strong industrial economies when its economy barely matches that of several of the US individual states.
I can understand that the US doesn't want to get involved in a third war (if it even can) in Asia. But I can't see a great effort needed for the most powerful and richest country in the world to teach a lesson to a tenth rate starving nation. Yes they have a large army. Yes, they may have some nuclear weapons although it isn't clear if they or their delivery systems work. I wonder what would happen if some serious damage were done to their most sophisticated installations and modernized cities. If their leaders were somehow incapacitated, what good would their army do them? These are desperate people and the leadership would very quickly be at each others' throats, nullifying their ability to mount a meaningful attack anywhere. If they did manage to fire some nuclear warheads, the most likely target would be South Korea so I can understand why the south doesn't want any action by the US that isn't cleared by them.
More's the pity, because the north will eventually take on the south anyway and the longer we wait the worse will be the result.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Hello Mr. ______.
When did the children of my contemporaries become my contemporaries?
Recently, I noticed that a few young men, children of friends or acquaintances of mine, have taken to calling me by my first name. ( G.W., if you are all paying attention)
Now, this is behavior that I have never overtly encouraged, nor implied that it is acceptable. In fact, it usually doesn't happen, and when it does, I will either ignore the friendly salutation and the person uttering it, or, if it seems like an honest mistake, gently correct them, usually through one of my children with whom they are friendly.
I know that many people my age feel that it is silly to insist on the formality, and I always assumed I would be a friend of the little (young) people, and have an easy friendly relationship. However, I have found that if you are too chummy with these little people, they very quickly cross the line into rudeness, so it is good to have the separation of an adult title.
Even when they are a bit older, like high teens - low twenties, I just don't feel comfortable being on a first name basis with these kids. ( Yes, they are still kids, even if they are married). I am old enough to be their parent, or I have their age in a multiple. I just think that the formality is good to remind the younger generation that a certain respect is due a previous generation.
I feel that I am not a hypocrite in this matter, since I am uncomfortable personally referring to my parent's friends by their first names, even if they insist on it. I also occasionally feel funny referring to someone 15 years older than me who have children I am friendly with by their first names, but this is more my generation already, as sometimes I am friendly with their kids, but other children of theirs are the same age as my children. I guess it really depends on the basis of the relationship.
However, the problem starts with first name calling, but can lead to much worse forms of disrespect, for teachers, Rabbis and other authortity figures who deserve to be treated with a degree of deferrence.
Ultimately, it seems that this generation just does not have the proper respect. I wonder who is responsible for that.
Recently, I noticed that a few young men, children of friends or acquaintances of mine, have taken to calling me by my first name. ( G.W., if you are all paying attention)
Now, this is behavior that I have never overtly encouraged, nor implied that it is acceptable. In fact, it usually doesn't happen, and when it does, I will either ignore the friendly salutation and the person uttering it, or, if it seems like an honest mistake, gently correct them, usually through one of my children with whom they are friendly.
I know that many people my age feel that it is silly to insist on the formality, and I always assumed I would be a friend of the little (young) people, and have an easy friendly relationship. However, I have found that if you are too chummy with these little people, they very quickly cross the line into rudeness, so it is good to have the separation of an adult title.
Even when they are a bit older, like high teens - low twenties, I just don't feel comfortable being on a first name basis with these kids. ( Yes, they are still kids, even if they are married). I am old enough to be their parent, or I have their age in a multiple. I just think that the formality is good to remind the younger generation that a certain respect is due a previous generation.
I feel that I am not a hypocrite in this matter, since I am uncomfortable personally referring to my parent's friends by their first names, even if they insist on it. I also occasionally feel funny referring to someone 15 years older than me who have children I am friendly with by their first names, but this is more my generation already, as sometimes I am friendly with their kids, but other children of theirs are the same age as my children. I guess it really depends on the basis of the relationship.
However, the problem starts with first name calling, but can lead to much worse forms of disrespect, for teachers, Rabbis and other authortity figures who deserve to be treated with a degree of deferrence.
Ultimately, it seems that this generation just does not have the proper respect. I wonder who is responsible for that.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Writers Block or Complacency?
I just noticed that the Good Doctor is "up to" 98 posts for the year. This number might look good on its own ( wow! almost 100!) however, I think it must be put in context.
In 2008, when the blog was in creation for a total of 62 days, there were 59 posts. Almost one a day. Since that time, to date, there have been 349 days, an average of 3.56 days per post, (or .28 posts per day, for all you statisticians over at the 'berg). I find this sad, that we have let our fans down by not publishing enough of the wit and wisdom that this site has become known for.
So, what is the reason for this? Are we busier ( yes), has the first blush of the joys of publishing worn off (not really), did we have LOTS of stuff stored up that HAD to come out immediately ( probably), have our lives become such that there is nothing to share with you anymore ( HECK, no)?
Who knows, its just something to ponder as we approach the end of this calendar year, a resolution to be more prolific in the next year. I think I will dabble a bit more in politics and current events, something I have been avoiding for much of this year. One thing's for sure, context is important ( WOW, ALMOST 100!!!) and it is abused waaay to many times by the media.
But now I have ALL OF THAT STUFF stored up and ready to rip.
So get ready.
In 2008, when the blog was in creation for a total of 62 days, there were 59 posts. Almost one a day. Since that time, to date, there have been 349 days, an average of 3.56 days per post, (or .28 posts per day, for all you statisticians over at the 'berg). I find this sad, that we have let our fans down by not publishing enough of the wit and wisdom that this site has become known for.
So, what is the reason for this? Are we busier ( yes), has the first blush of the joys of publishing worn off (not really), did we have LOTS of stuff stored up that HAD to come out immediately ( probably), have our lives become such that there is nothing to share with you anymore ( HECK, no)?
Who knows, its just something to ponder as we approach the end of this calendar year, a resolution to be more prolific in the next year. I think I will dabble a bit more in politics and current events, something I have been avoiding for much of this year. One thing's for sure, context is important ( WOW, ALMOST 100!!!) and it is abused waaay to many times by the media.
But now I have ALL OF THAT STUFF stored up and ready to rip.
So get ready.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Patterson for Mayor, or Public Advocate
I think the one person in New York politics who makes everyone else look better is our dear governor ( no pun intended).
I have the wonderful opportunity to be subjected to one of his speeches the other day while waiting in the Department of Buildings. Since I was stuck waiting there, I heard more him speaking that the usual sound bites on the news.
Wow, frightening stuff. He was talking to Wall Street, trying to say how important they were to New York State. An admirable sentiment, but one that he just kept saying over and over and over.
And that was the good part.
Where he lost me was when he referred to something as "weaved" as opposed to "woven". ( know it can be both, but woven was the right one for the reference he was making). But even if you disagree that this is the wrong usage, the next comment that caught my attention was his point that one should object to anyone who says that Wall Street is not an integral part of New York. he gave examples as to other states and their industries, such as Michigan and cars, Maryland and Clam Chowder, and when he got to Texas he said ( as close as I can remember it
If you tell them in Texas to give up oil, they will string you up the nearest tree."
Texas, a black man, and a reference to lynching. He couldn't POSSIBLY have come up with something else?? However, he will get a pass for two reasons. One, he is a blithering idiot, so no one will care, and two, he is black, so he can say it.
I am just waiting until the line is attributed to Rush.
I have the wonderful opportunity to be subjected to one of his speeches the other day while waiting in the Department of Buildings. Since I was stuck waiting there, I heard more him speaking that the usual sound bites on the news.
Wow, frightening stuff. He was talking to Wall Street, trying to say how important they were to New York State. An admirable sentiment, but one that he just kept saying over and over and over.
And that was the good part.
Where he lost me was when he referred to something as "weaved" as opposed to "woven". ( know it can be both, but woven was the right one for the reference he was making). But even if you disagree that this is the wrong usage, the next comment that caught my attention was his point that one should object to anyone who says that Wall Street is not an integral part of New York. he gave examples as to other states and their industries, such as Michigan and cars, Maryland and Clam Chowder, and when he got to Texas he said ( as close as I can remember it
If you tell them in Texas to give up oil, they will string you up the nearest tree."
Texas, a black man, and a reference to lynching. He couldn't POSSIBLY have come up with something else?? However, he will get a pass for two reasons. One, he is a blithering idiot, so no one will care, and two, he is black, so he can say it.
I am just waiting until the line is attributed to Rush.
Boondoggle City
I went to Court today, hoping for some material to write about. Alas, nothing.
However,
After court I had the (mis)fortune to have to deal with something at the buildings department. I knew that I was in for a rough ride when the "guard" who runs the magnetometer and X-ray machine made me check my radio. My cell phone with a camera was fine, as was the digital camcorder I had in my pocket, but for some reason, the radio for the volunteer ambulance squad is a problem. I happen to know that there is a letter from the city that allows me to carry it, but I figured getting into a battle of wits with these clearly unarmed members (I DON'T mean guns) of the security team would not be productive, so I just let it go.
Then the fun really started. I went to the office I needed to be in. After ten minutes, someone sauntered out and took my paperwork. He came back fifteen minutes later having filled out a receipt and one line on another paper, and told me to go downstairs and pay and then return.
"Easy enough" I figured, forgetting that I haven't had to deal with idiotic city agencies in quite some time. Well, first, you have to get on a line in order to get a ticket to get into the queue to be seen. This involves another ten minute wait to show the girl my paperwork, as well as ID. (Ostensibly to prevent other people from paying my company's fines.) Then another ten minute wait for the cashier, who was about as friendly as the first girl. ( Not very, in case you are wondering).
After this, you would think the transaction would be finished. However, if you were paying attention above, or if you know how the city works, this is of course not the case. I then had to go back to the FIRST office, ask to see the same gentleman, wait the requisite ten additional minutes for him to walk the probable thirty feet or less to the reception area to exchange the receipt I was given for the one he was holding, and a pre-printed letter with his addition of a check mark.
Now you have an understanding why the city is going bankrupt, as well as why no one wants to do business in or with the city.
However,
After court I had the (mis)fortune to have to deal with something at the buildings department. I knew that I was in for a rough ride when the "guard" who runs the magnetometer and X-ray machine made me check my radio. My cell phone with a camera was fine, as was the digital camcorder I had in my pocket, but for some reason, the radio for the volunteer ambulance squad is a problem. I happen to know that there is a letter from the city that allows me to carry it, but I figured getting into a battle of wits with these clearly unarmed members (I DON'T mean guns) of the security team would not be productive, so I just let it go.
Then the fun really started. I went to the office I needed to be in. After ten minutes, someone sauntered out and took my paperwork. He came back fifteen minutes later having filled out a receipt and one line on another paper, and told me to go downstairs and pay and then return.
"Easy enough" I figured, forgetting that I haven't had to deal with idiotic city agencies in quite some time. Well, first, you have to get on a line in order to get a ticket to get into the queue to be seen. This involves another ten minute wait to show the girl my paperwork, as well as ID. (Ostensibly to prevent other people from paying my company's fines.) Then another ten minute wait for the cashier, who was about as friendly as the first girl. ( Not very, in case you are wondering).
After this, you would think the transaction would be finished. However, if you were paying attention above, or if you know how the city works, this is of course not the case. I then had to go back to the FIRST office, ask to see the same gentleman, wait the requisite ten additional minutes for him to walk the probable thirty feet or less to the reception area to exchange the receipt I was given for the one he was holding, and a pre-printed letter with his addition of a check mark.
Now you have an understanding why the city is going bankrupt, as well as why no one wants to do business in or with the city.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Mom knows best
I was listening to the radio recently and I heard ad for the new kind of thermometer that promises to give an accurate reading with just a swipe of the forehead. What got my attention the most was the kid in the ad, who whines "I hate the one that goes in the ear".
This struck me as extremely funny for two reasons. One, in my day, the complaint was similar, but the last word had an extra letter. Two, the in the ear thermometer was such an advancement when it came out, especially over the previous, aforementioned measurement procedure. We were amazed that a temperature could be obtained so quickly and accurately without all the previous fuss. Now this is known as the archaic method to get a temperature, and people are complaining that it is too uncomfortable.
I am not sure when I became an old man yellin' at the young whippersnappers that they don't know how good they have it, but considering the speed of technology today, I am not surprised that it happened a lot earlier than I thought it would.
On the flip side, the other approved method for taking temperature when I was a kid was my mother's lips on my forehead. ("you're fine. go to school"). So really the more things change, the more they stay the same.
This struck me as extremely funny for two reasons. One, in my day, the complaint was similar, but the last word had an extra letter. Two, the in the ear thermometer was such an advancement when it came out, especially over the previous, aforementioned measurement procedure. We were amazed that a temperature could be obtained so quickly and accurately without all the previous fuss. Now this is known as the archaic method to get a temperature, and people are complaining that it is too uncomfortable.
I am not sure when I became an old man yellin' at the young whippersnappers that they don't know how good they have it, but considering the speed of technology today, I am not surprised that it happened a lot earlier than I thought it would.
On the flip side, the other approved method for taking temperature when I was a kid was my mother's lips on my forehead. ("you're fine. go to school"). So really the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Calling all cowards
We received an anonymous comment on a piece I recently wrote about the citizens of Jerusalem. The comment was a nasty personal attack upon myself. In discussions with the good doctor, we decided not to publish the post.
Not that I mind criticism. What bothers me about it is that the writer is too cowardly to come out into the open and stand behind his opinions and his aggressive posture. I am fully capable of civilized debate and stand behind my own opinions. I can just as easily counter an opposing argument as I can concede that I am wrong. Despite what anyone may think, I come by my views largely by experience peppered with a slight bit of preconceived ideas but I know the difference between reason and emotion. I can give you a good exposition of the thought processes that shaped my stance on a particular issue and I welcome the chance to do so.
So if you would like to comment, by all means do so, but I need to know who you are. I am unwilling to fight with shadows.
Not that I mind criticism. What bothers me about it is that the writer is too cowardly to come out into the open and stand behind his opinions and his aggressive posture. I am fully capable of civilized debate and stand behind my own opinions. I can just as easily counter an opposing argument as I can concede that I am wrong. Despite what anyone may think, I come by my views largely by experience peppered with a slight bit of preconceived ideas but I know the difference between reason and emotion. I can give you a good exposition of the thought processes that shaped my stance on a particular issue and I welcome the chance to do so.
So if you would like to comment, by all means do so, but I need to know who you are. I am unwilling to fight with shadows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
